License renders this model useless
I'm sory but such a license makes this model useless, not even worth trying it, it does not matter if the results are good or bad, it's completely useless, unless you change it to some reasonable like the H3, LTX or Flux Klein licenses, or this model is useless.
Why, because you can't email them for a commercial license? Do you not have an email address?
And if you want to publish a fine-tune, with or without your commercial license, you just have to add to add a line to the readme "thank you to the Qwen team for their hard work" etc.
@JonMichaelGalindoif you publish a finetune, as far as I know, you publish it under the same license.
So far as understood in the license, the license you can ask for is a paid commercial one, not a free license or an open one, important to differentiate this, in fact with H3 you should ask for a license, but they specify that they are just giving them, the basis is to have a register of the professionals using the model, if that's the case for Qwen Image 2.1 and it's made more clear in the license, then it could be a way out, but so far the license does not allow even personal use, it's just a research only model.
Claridy that point about the fine tune, will you have to release it under the same license, or can you change the license recognising the work in the qwen's team.
Right now it's not useful as it is, if you are right and it's just an email, it coudl be good to know, if you are right and you can just do a fine tune, then it's also ok, but the license is the framework we use to work, we need to be sure under which conditions do we work, and as it is right now... ther is no conditions at all.
I'm sory but such a license makes this model useless, not even worth trying it, it does not matter if the results are good or bad, it's completely useless,
I agree.
unless you change it to some reasonable like the H3, LTX or Flux Klein licenses, or this model is useless.
But those licenses suck too. The previous Qwen Image model was under the Apache 2.0 license. THAT would be best to use.
I agree with that @jebbam , but I understand companies want to have a piece of cake if someone like Disney or other major producers use the model for their productions, so I get the caps in some areas of the license for some sizes, however for H3 you can request a license and it's immediately issued, we already did it in the studio.
A comment appeared in my email asking about the terms of the license. They had a different reading of it.
But that points to a general issue about all these custom licenses proliferating. You basically need a lawyer to interpret them, and each lawyer may even see it a bit different, because most of these licenses have never been adjudicated anywhere.
Whereas the true open source licenses (e.g. at the Open Source Initiative) have a long track record, have been reviewed by many lawyers and in some cases been in actual court cases. We "know" what those licenses mean.
But when we have a new license-of-the-day, no one really knows what the terms are.
This is yet another reason why the "plain" open source licenses such as Apache, MIT, etc. should be used instead of all these homespun licenses.
- Governing Law and Jurisdiction.
a. This Agreement and any dispute arising out of or relating to it will be governed by the laws of China, without regard to conflict of law principles, and the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement.
b. The People's Courts in Hangzhou City shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising out of this Agreement.
Well.. if you are not subject to the People's courts in Hangzhou City.... you are in the clear.
Just paraphrasing what I have been told "not even alibaba can sue you in a different place"
@jebbamagree with you, even a slightly modified one with some extra clauses if you want to protect or limit something, I don't like hunyuan license, but at least is Apache 2.0 + things
@mb-1337unless I understand this wrong, if you accept the license and use the model you accept that you consider yourself under the jurisdiction of those courts for things related with this.
@jebbamagree with you, even a slightly modified one with some extra clauses if you want to protect or limit something, I don't like hunyuan license, but at least is Apache 2.0 + things
@mb-1337unless I understand this wrong, if you accept the license and use the model you accept that you consider yourself under the jurisdiction of those courts for things related with this.
good luck getting everyone in China to settle this
you may be right, in any case I don't see any damage on making the license more clear, at least related to the commercial usage of the outputs, requiring a commercial license for the use in a platform for third users it's kind of logical, but clarifying the commercial usage of the outputs would be helpful and change the perspective of the license a lot, it could make the license similar to the FLux 2 Klein 9B one
good luck getting everyone in China to settle this
They don't have to do this in China. For me (USA) and China are part of many international treaties about copyright, so according to my AI lawyer:
If they sue you for breach (e.g., commercial use without a license), the agreed forum is Hangzhou. China and the US are both parties to the Hague Service Convention, so they can validly serve you in the US. If you don't show up, they get a default judgment.
They also have levers that bypass the clause entirely: DMCA-style takedowns against weights/fine-tunes hosted on Hugging Face, GitHub, etc. — platforms comply regardless of jurisdiction clauses. And a copyright infringement suit in US federal court is a separate theory (China and the US are both Berne Convention members, so Chinese works get US copyright protection automatically); whether model weights are copyrightable is unsettled, but the forum clause would then be a defense you'd have to raise and win, not a wall.
But again, we're forum users playing lawyer. That's the whole reason the "standard", tested and tried open source licenses are far better than licenses where non-lawyer developers have to guess whether they can use it or not.
For me the license is toxic and I won't use the model, unlike previous Qwen-Image models.
read A. again and let me know where the laws of China apply anywhere outside China when they specifically say the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement.
"we created something that says our sovereign nation ignores whatever you have in your nation"
again.. good luck enforcing anything outside of china with this license.
read A. again and let me know where the laws of China apply anywhere outside China when they specifically say the UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement.
"we created something that says our sovereign nation ignores whatever you have in your nation"
again.. good luck enforcing anything outside of china with this license.
Again, are you a lawyer?
I have been served by a foreign country in the USA (my case is on EFF.org, if you really want to dig in).
They say the "UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods" doesn't apply, but that is different than the "Hague Service Convention" and definitely different than the DMCA. Wouldn't DMCA apply to US citizen? Yes.
But again, to re-iterate: we're developers playing lawyers. I know that you don't know. We should have CLEAR licenses, that have stood the test of time, not these ad-hoc licenses that are subject to endless forum debates as to what they mean.
Totally agree. I just posted a separate proposal with a few possible licensing alternatives here:
https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen-Image-2.1/discussions/9
Hopefully, with enough community feedback, the Qwen team will reconsider this. Without a license that people can confidently use in real projects, adoption will inevitably suffer.
Fingers crossed for Apache-2.0 again :)
It is genuinely hilarious to me to see all these "AHHHHH LICENSE AHHHHHHH" writings.
You buy raw copper plates from Chinese factory, sent to Germany. You get steel plates with copper surface treatment.
What do you do? Nothing, even if the Chinese authorities get a hold of you, they can't skewer the factory due to lack of proofs to skewer them with.
You download digital image model from Chinese factory. You make something of it.
What do they do? Send a hitman after you? Seems a little asymmetric.
And this is digital tomfoolery generators; not actual physical materials used for actual physical production by people actually doing real things. IMAGE GENERATORS REAL SERIOUS BUSINESS.. hah
Just be a good sport, be nice to eachother, and I'm sure it'll be just fine.