Thanks for LaMa — it does the job better than anything else I measured.
A licensing question, asked before I depend on it rather than after. I know it has come up: in #230 the Inpaint Anything authors asked exactly this, and in #132 the answer was "the license is open" with a screenshot of the repository's Apache 2.0 badge.
The difficulty is that the badge covers this repository, and big-lama is not in it — there are no GitHub releases, and the README points at a third-party mirror. So for an app that ships the weights, the paper trail currently ends at a comment rather than at a license.
Would you be willing to make it explicit — one line in the README, or a LICENSE-WEIGHTS file — saying which license the pre-trained weights are released under? If the answer is Apache 2.0, as #230 suggests, saying so in the repository would settle it for everyone downstream, not just for me.
Happy to open a PR with the wording if that is easier.
Thanks for LaMa — it does the job better than anything else I measured.
A licensing question, asked before I depend on it rather than after. I know it has come up: in #230 the Inpaint Anything authors asked exactly this, and in #132 the answer was "the license is open" with a screenshot of the repository's Apache 2.0 badge.
The difficulty is that the badge covers this repository, and big-lama is not in it — there are no GitHub releases, and the README points at a third-party mirror. So for an app that ships the weights, the paper trail currently ends at a comment rather than at a license.
Would you be willing to make it explicit — one line in the README, or a LICENSE-WEIGHTS file — saying which license the pre-trained weights are released under? If the answer is Apache 2.0, as #230 suggests, saying so in the repository would settle it for everyone downstream, not just for me.
Happy to open a PR with the wording if that is easier.