Thanks for releasing Kandinsky 2.2 openly — this is a licensing paperwork request, not a bug.
This repository carries a proper LICENSE file (Apache-2.0). The weights repositories on Hugging Face, however, carry only a license: apache-2.0 tag in the model-card front-matter, with no LICENSE file committed beside the weights:
(Checked 2026-08-12 against the HF API; neither repository is gated.)
Request: could an actual LICENSE file be added to each of those two repositories, containing the Apache-2.0 text and the appropriate copyright line?
Why it's worth the two minutes: for anyone evaluating Kandinsky for use in a commercially distributed product, a metadata tag is a weaker signal than a licence file committed alongside the artefacts it covers — a tag is easy to set, easy to change, and does not itself state who holds the copyright. A LICENSE file in each weights repo would make the already-clear intent unambiguous at essentially no cost.
A related question, if you have a moment: kandinsky-2-2-prior also redistributes a CLIP ViT-bigG-14 text tower under text_encoder/. Upstream, laion/CLIP-ViT-bigG-14-laion2B-39B-b160k is tagged mit (also without a LICENSE file). Is the Apache-2.0 tag on the prior repo intended to cover that redistributed component too, or does it retain its upstream MIT terms? A one-line note in the model card would settle it.
Thanks either way, and no urgency — this is a documentation gap rather than a blocker.
Thanks for releasing Kandinsky 2.2 openly — this is a licensing paperwork request, not a bug.
This repository carries a proper
LICENSEfile (Apache-2.0). The weights repositories on Hugging Face, however, carry only alicense: apache-2.0tag in the model-card front-matter, with no LICENSE file committed beside the weights:license: apache-2.0tag, no LICENSE filelicense: apache-2.0tag, no LICENSE file(Checked 2026-08-12 against the HF API; neither repository is gated.)
Request: could an actual
LICENSEfile be added to each of those two repositories, containing the Apache-2.0 text and the appropriate copyright line?Why it's worth the two minutes: for anyone evaluating Kandinsky for use in a commercially distributed product, a metadata tag is a weaker signal than a licence file committed alongside the artefacts it covers — a tag is easy to set, easy to change, and does not itself state who holds the copyright. A LICENSE file in each weights repo would make the already-clear intent unambiguous at essentially no cost.
A related question, if you have a moment:
kandinsky-2-2-prioralso redistributes a CLIP ViT-bigG-14 text tower undertext_encoder/. Upstream,laion/CLIP-ViT-bigG-14-laion2B-39B-b160kis taggedmit(also without a LICENSE file). Is the Apache-2.0 tag on the prior repo intended to cover that redistributed component too, or does it retain its upstream MIT terms? A one-line note in the model card would settle it.Thanks either way, and no urgency — this is a documentation gap rather than a blocker.