circlestone-labs

/

Anima

like 1.63k

Follow

CircleStone Labs 766

There's been questions about the license, so I figured I would explain things in detail. First, the primary goals of the license:

• allow for open-weights access to the model
• non-commercial use restriction on the model itself, so that I can make money by offering commercial licenses
• otherwise be minimally restrictive for end users' use of the model

I worked with a lawyer experienced in IP law to craft the license. To make this easy, we took Black Forest Labs' Flux License , and made modifications to it that simplify it, remove some restrictions, and add clarity in a few places.

Let's go through the terms of the CircleStone license. I will compare with the Flux license where there are differences.

1. Definitions

• These are almost identical to the Flux license. I removed parts about Content Filters. I added clarity that adapters such as LoRAs are Derivative Works.

2. License Grant

• You can't use the model itself for commercial purposes. Examples: hosting on a platform and charging for image generation, hosting behind a paid API, integrating the model directly into a paid product like a game.
• 2.d: you may use Outputs (generated images) for commercial purposes. Examples: using generated images for making art for a VN, making assets for a video game, making concept art for an anime series, making an advertisement. These are commercial uses of the Outputs, which are allowed. Only commercial use of the Model is restricted.
• The part about using Content Filters, or otherwise reviewing model outputs before publication, is removed. It is replaced with a more generic clause that essentially says "anyone using the model is responsible for complying with the law" (basically: don't sue me, the model creator, sue the platform that was allowing the model to be used unlawfully).

3. Distribution

• Clause 3.c is newly added. This clarifies that commercial licensees can also use Derivatives (e.g. loras). This is already something the Flux license grants BFL, just not spelled out as clearly. From the Flux license:
  • Section 2.b: "If you want to use a FLUX.1 [dev] Model or a Derivative for any purpose that is not expressly authorized under this License, such as for a commercial activity, you must request a license from Company"
  • Section 3.a "you must [...] specify that any rights to use the FLUX.1 [dev] Models and/or Derivatives shall be directly granted by Company to said third-party recipients"
  • Section 3.c: terms and conditions you impose on Derivatives may not conflict with the terms of the Flux License
• Taken together, these terms allow BFL to grant commercial use rights to Derivatives, and you may not prevent them from doing so.
• The CircleStone license is just more explicit about this, clarifying it in a single clause.
• Why do this? Just to make it clear that commercial licensees (think platforms like Civit, or Fal) can use loras in addition to the base model I provide.

4. Restrictions

• I removed parts about military or biometric use as they are not relevant.
• Removed parts about GDPR and similar laws as they don't apply to this model, because no data is being collected.
• The remaining restrictions essentially amount to "don't break the law".

Sections 5, 6, 7: parts about Content Filters are removed

8. Termination, survival

• I have removed section 8.b from the Flux license, which states: "We may terminate this License, in whole or in part, at any time upon notice (including electronic) to you."
• This is the "rugpull clause". It gives BFL the right to take down any Flux Derivative model arbitrarily.
• CircleStone Labs does not have this right. I cannot take down a derivative model so long as it is complying with the license (and again, this basically just means "don't break the law").

So in summary: the license is overall less restrictive than the Flux license. It has a non-commercial use restriction on the Model itself, but otherwise is intended to allow permissive use of the Model and Derivatives by end users. You can use Outputs (generated images) commercially. I can't take down a lora or other derivative just because I don't like it. What restrictions remain in the license essentially say that you must follow the law.

That's a lot of words to basically say the following:

• you believe creators of published derivatives should be able to attach additional restrictions on commercial use of the derivative
• the license doesn't allow this; commercial licensees may use any publicly available derivative

That's just how it is, I don't know what else to say. Why is it like this? Because it provides unambiguous legal clarity for commercial licensees, and because the vast majority of users simply don't care, which means these terms aren't an undue burden.

These types of terms are common in other licenses and terms of service, for example:

• https://unity.com/legal/terms-of-service
  • Section 12.8: "If you choose to share or publish User Content, others may be able to use, sell, reproduce, modify, distribute, make available, display, transmit and communicate User Content. If you do not want that to happen, do not use the sharing, publishing or other collaboration features of the Offerings"
  • If you make content (plugins, assets, etc) publicly available via Unity's platform, others can use it, including commercially. If you don't like that, don't publish the content.
• https://huggingface.co/nvidia/LuxDiT/blob/main/LICENSE.md
  • Section 3.3: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, NVIDIA Corporation and its affiliates may use the Work and any derivative works commercially."
  • You can't use the derivative work commercially, but if it's publicly available Nvidia may use it commercially.
  • There is another Nvidia license which says the same thing but I can't find it.

Anima is hardly unique in having these types of terms in the license. The GPL-3 analogy I gave previously is also a good example. Copyleft licenses and "same-terms" style licenses have a long history of restricting the imposing of additional restrictions.

"Then use a differerent model" cop put

How is this a cop out? If you don't agree to the license terms, then don't create a derivative work that must inherit the same license. This is true with every license like this. Let's say I create a derivative of a GPL-3 work, but I really hate the country of France, so I attach an additional restriction "no entity in France may use this code for any purpose". That's not allowed under the license. Are you going to complain to the Free Software Foundation about their license restricting you from doing this? I guess you have the right to complain, but the FSF is just going to say "that's the terms of the GPL-3, if you don't agree then don't create a derivative work". It's the same with Anima.

I think it's fair to say that having this discussion means i understand more of what i was originally confused about but if anyone wants a TLDR in some areas: If you're on Civitai treat it like flux, flux doesn't own your loras, your checkpoints - but on Civitai, they don't have a commercial lisc so you can't earn blue OR yellow buzz from it.

Also i kinda like the joke idea that the original trainer "OWNS" my content, even if not true - that would state that i can now jokingly call Circlestone Labs "Uwu Daddy" and proceed to call models and loras "Their children"

... :) don't mind me i'm too autisitc, if that was offensive i'm sorry (mostly lol)