The license was added in a commit 18 hours ago. There was some concern about the lack of a license here, so hopefully this clears things up for those using the project.
I'm so glad to see this license become more popular. It's the best way to protect your product from getting SaaSS-ified and having all of your revenue stolen by the FAANGs, and without making it non-free.
As far as my understanding goes, when a Repo doesn't have a license, it means that the author reserves all copyrights.
Now that the original author added a license, any new commits will be under the AGPLv3, and his old commits(assuming he wants to) will also be relicensed to AGPLv3.
However, the issue lies with other contributors, ones who committed beforehand, these commits will still be "All rights reserved", and you can't relicense that to AGPLv3 without explicit permission.
Other contributors submitting their code to a proprietary codebase are giving up their license to the code in favour of the repo's license. The repo owner can do whatever with the code at that point, including choosing to open it as AGPLv3 if they want to.
5 comments
[ 213 ms ] story [ 1297 ms ] threadNow that the original author added a license, any new commits will be under the AGPLv3, and his old commits(assuming he wants to) will also be relicensed to AGPLv3.
However, the issue lies with other contributors, ones who committed beforehand, these commits will still be "All rights reserved", and you can't relicense that to AGPLv3 without explicit permission.
https://github.com/AUTOMATIC1111/stable-diffusion-webui/grap...
If that's true, then anybody modifying the project can be sued later by the old contributors and the license isn't strictly valid.