1

Example of such a clause in the Creative MLOpen RAIL-M dated August 22, 2022 used by runwayml/stable-diffusion-v1-5:

You agree not to use the Model or Derivatives of the Model:

  • In any way that violates any applicable national, federal, state, local or international law or regulation.

I don't see the point of that clause. I.e., I don't see what would change if the clause were to be deleted. Why do some open-source licenses have a clause stating that one can't violate the law?

5
  • 1
    I’m voting to close this question because I don't believe that license is an open source license, at least as defined by this site; the restrictions in Appendix A would appear to me to be a violation of the "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor" clause of the OSD. May 6, 2023 at 20:42
  • @PhilipKendall where was is stated that opensource.stackexchange.com follow the OSD definition? (No intent to argue, just curious, since I agree with that Appendix A violate the OSD definitions) May 6, 2023 at 20:57
  • 1
    The Help Center on topic page: "As a general rule, we use the FSF's four freedoms and the OSI's open source definition as a guide to what is considered to be in the scope of "free and open"." May 6, 2023 at 21:02
  • @PhilipKendall thanks! I reposted the question in Law.SE: Why do some licenses have a clause stating that one can't violate the law?. I don't have enough rep to close it here. May 6, 2023 at 21:41
  • 2
    I’m voting to close this question because the author has indicated that he'd like it closed.
    – MadHatter
    May 7, 2023 at 5:40

0

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.