Feedback on the Anima model license
Hello, I have seen some creators in the community share their views on the license agreement for the Anima model, which I think are valuable, so I would like to pass them on to you.
The creator’s main points are:He highly praises Anima as an excellent model and understands that model training involves costs. He fully accepts the "non-commercial + commercial" dual-license model.
However, he is concerned about one clause in the agreement: the author reserves the right to commercialize users' non-commercial derivatives. He feels this restriction is overly strict, and users cannot even apply a copyleft license to their own non-commercial derivatives.
There is no ill intent; he is simply expressing concerns about the license terms from a creator’s perspective. I personally really like Anima too. Thank you so much for creating such an amazing model!
I think the license is good, I mean, copyleft purists will hate it, but pragmatically speaking, it's fair for a commercial license. Anti-rugpull protection, you own your outputs, no censorship, etc.
@Shinku What do you mean, "Anti-rugpull protection"? The license does not contain explicit “anti‑rug‑pull” provisions (e.g., guarantees of continued availability, escrow of the model code, or contractual obligations that prevent the licensor from withdrawing the model). It mainly sets usage restrictions, attribution duties, and liability limits.
@wys20 You're talking about reakaakasky, right? For context: https://civitai.com/models/2364703.
I initially spoke up for CircleStone Labs because I didn't see Clause 3c. Now that I've read it half a dozen times, I have to agree with reakaakasky. It is really restrictive.
Never mind if the terms are fair. The reality is one of the most talented model creators out there is pushing back against the license. I personally love Anima, but if reakaakasky moves on to other models I will most likely follow them.
So here is a crazy idea: how about a middle ground? A contributor-specific addendum that allows selected MVP creators to make their non-commercial deratives copy-left or receive royalties. This way there's no need to rewrite the whole license and CircleStone Labs gets to keep top talents in the ecosystem.
Anti-rugpull protection
Probably referring to the fact that I removed the clause in the Flux license that allows BFL to take down derivatives for any reason whatsoever. Many licenses have something like this, but I specifically made the CircleStone license to not have them. I can't take down any derivative model.
It is really restrictive.
I don't believe the CircleStone license is, in any practical way, more restrictive than other non-commercial licenses. And in several important ways it is less restrictive overall.
Regarding Clause 3c. I have mentioned this elsewhere but just to reiterate: the purpose is to remove any legal ambiguity over whether commercial licensees may use LoRAs with the model. With other similarly licensed models (Flux, LTX-2), the assumption, and de facto case today, is that platforms with commercial use rights can use derivatives with the model also. The text of those licenses is a bit vague, but myself and my lawyer agree that it implicitly is giving the right of the Company to allow commercial use of Derivatives in addition to the base Model. You can go look on a platform like Civit right now; in the on-site generator you can use any Flux lora. Civit is already, today, "selling" your Flux loras.
Also, at the risk of engaging in a bit of whataboutism, I would like to point out that NoobAI has a non-commercial license that I believe is significantly more restrictive than Anima. With Noob (and derivatives of Noob), you can't use generated images for any commercial purpose (with Anima, you can). Civit also allows on-site generator use of Noob. So either 1) Civit has negotiated a commercial license from the NoobAI team, 2) Civit has informal permission from the NoobAI team to host the model, or 3) Civit is just breaking the license and the NoobAI team is choosing not to enforce it. Furthermore, Noob loras can be used in the on-site Civit generator also (i.e. Civit is "selling" your Noob loras, because their generator is how they make money). You can change the settings of your model to disallow use in the on-site generator, but I think that this is just Civit's policy and not legally binding, so the same would be true of Anima.
I don't want to sound like I'm being overly critical of other models' license choices or of the policies of platforms, because I really don't care how they choose to do things. I'm just pointing out that a lot of what people are complaining about in the CircleStone license, other models already do, but worse. This never seemed to stop the vast majority of creators especially if it's just a lora finetune. The Civit creator whose post you are conveying, has in fact trained loras for PonyV7 and Noob, both of which have non-commercial licenses that in my opinion are more restrictive than Anima's.
A contributor-specific addendum that allows selected MVP creators to make their non-commercial derivatives copy-left or receive royalties
Anybody can contact me directly and negotiate custom commercial use licenses. For example, if some team wanted to do a large finetune, but they would only do it if they can potentially make money off it, we certainly can negotiate custom terms like that up-front.
Finally, I would say that I'm not even necessarily opposed to allowing a "pure copyleft" option for derivatives, possibly even just removing Clause 3c entirely. If you really want to say "absolutely nobody can use my model commercially", then sure, I guess. I just don't think it matters much; the overwhelming majority of creators uploading loras on Civit choose to allow commercial use of their models via the onsite generator.
It’s nonsense that someone who complains about license restrictions is the one adding a latent watermark and prohibiting merges.
I skimmed the lisc myself just now, outputs are even allowed to be onsold - this is even MORE open than Flux.
Flux refuses all commercial including outputs unless you're using a distilled or commercial based model AFAIK.
And in the AI world commercial may even mean: money making as in training a lora for commission. It all depends on the view of the lisc.
I dont see an issue with the lisc at all, i've not EVEN had a chance to test this model YET sadly as i've been dealing with burnout but my good friend that's been working with me behind the scenes on al ot of my coding ventures consistently has been testing it.
I really like the outputs, and i can't wait to figure out how to train loras for it!