[ericpauley]

My understanding (IANAL) [1] is that copyright licenses have no say on the output of software. Further, CC licenses don't say anything about running or using software (or model weights). It's therefore questionable whether the CC-BY-NC license actually prevents commercial use of the model.

[1] https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/12070/allowed...

[cosmojg]

You're correct, but no one has had the balls (or the lawyers) to clarify this in court yet. Expect to see hosting providers complying with takedown requests for the foreseeable future.

[indymike]

Hosting providers *have* to comply with takedown requests to maintain safe harbor.

[mcbits]

I don't remember the details (or outcome) but there was a lawsuit a few years ago involving CAD or architecture software and whether they could limit how the output images were used because they were assemblages of clipart that the company asserted were still protected by copyright. Something like that. A lot of "AI" output potentially poses a similar issue, just at a far more granular level.

[Tepix]

You're wrong because software, as you describe it, includes the "cp" command which creates a perfect copy.

[ericpauley]

As sibling noted, we’re talking about the impact of a software’s license on use of its output.

I suppose your point would stand if the software were a quine?

[tikhonj]

The copyright license of the cp code itself has no bearing on the copyright of what you produce (well, copy) with cp.

[robertlagrant]

That's not the point they're making. They're replying to their parent comment.