I stand by what I said. If you do a web search, it keeps coming up as non-commercial. For instance, here are just 3 instances:

https://uxmag.com/articles/flux-1-is-a-mind-blowing-open-weights-ai-image-generator-with-12b-parameters#:~:text=1%20Pro%3A%20Commercial%20use%20of,this%20model%20for%20commercial%20gain.

"Flux.1 Dev: Use of the images is restricted to non-commercial purposes, meaning you cannot sell or distribute images generated by this model for commercial gain."

https://modal.com/blog/flux-dev

Is Flux Dev free to use?

Yes, Flux Dev is free to use (inference and fine-tuning) for non-commercial use cases, which includes:

Research and experimentation, including personal hobby projects

Non-production use cases at for-profit companies

Charitable organizations

If you intend to use Flux for revenue-generating, production use cases though, you need to either:

Access the model through an approved partner

Reach out to Black Forest Labs directly for a commercial license, which will be subject to some kind of fee or revenue sharing agreement

https://medium.com/@cognidownunder/flux-1-the-ai-image-generator-thats-changing-the-game-3fb4c40fd7f7

Q: Is FLUX.1 [dev] really free? A: Yes, for non-commercial use. You can download it and start generating images faster than you can say “copyright infringement lawsuit.”

@Adel_AI  you mean this from their website: FLUX.1 [dev]

FLUX.1 [dev] is an open-weight, guidance-distilled model for non-commercial applications. Directly distilled from FLUX.1 [pro], FLUX.1 [dev] obtains similar quality and prompt adherence capabilities, while being more efficient than a standard model of the same size. FLUX.1 [dev] weights are available on HuggingFace and can be directly tried out on Replicate, fal.ai, mystic, deepinfra, tensorOpera and hyperbolic. For applications in commercial contexts – Get in touch with us.

Reason I use it is because I enjoy the loras created by Adel. The best IMO. I'm not a pro, nor have plans on being one, so this is for my own enjoyment, and I hope also for others that see my renderings. Commercial use yes/no has no bearing on me, and I assume that also applies to many others here. This is a hobby for me.

You're too biased. Take a step back and you'll realize that not everyone has your expectations: we don't all intend to use it commercially. In fact, I'd like to know what percentage of people use it commercially.

Then, because of your bias, you can't imagine that people spend time and energy on a hobby.

Flux Dev is much better than Schell, that's a fact. We'll therefore have more pleasure in seeing our creations made with Dev.

Outside Dev has one flaw: it's censored and misplaced prudishness, preventing academic nudity (among other things). That's where the energy and time devoted by people you don't understand come into play.

I hope I've enlightened you with my opinion alone. I'll leave it to others to explain their motivation.

As for the legal aspect: there's no consensus, and I don't have a law degree specifically on this topic.

I've read many interpretations, and the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that their text is poorly written and sows doubt.

That said, here's Forest's response:

"The two key parts are the outputs section and the model usage section. If you don't host the model yourself, you can use the outputs commercially (i.e., when generating via our API or one of our partners). If you host the model yourself (e.g., by running a convenient local workflow), you must obtain a commercial license. Note that we're currently quite stuck on this point. And they're mainly intended for larger volumes."

It's understood (by me, and I don't pretend to be right): if you are a large company: take out and pay for the license to benefit from our AI and make money with clients. The client, through these companies, can commercially sell the image results they paid for through the company (see Replicate and Fal).

My basic understanding is dev licence you can use images commercially if your making under a certain amount per year, I prefer schnell personally for speed the better licensing is also a plus

I mean Section 2.d says it all doesn't it. :) "We claim no ownership rights in and to the Outputs." and "You may use the Outputs for any purpose (Including for commercial purposes)."

2.d. Outputs. We claim no ownership rights in and to the Outputs. You are solely responsible for the Outputs you generate and their subsequent uses in accordance with this License. You may use Output for any purpose (including for commercial purposes), except as expressly prohibited herein. You may not use the Output to train, fine-tune or distill a model that is competitive with the FLUX.1 [dev] Model or the FLUX.1 Kontext [dev] Model.

I had a lawyer friend look at this a while ago, and he said, it's ambiguous at best, because 2.b and 4.a suggest otherwise. However, he said, it would seem the "Spirit" of the license is to separate "Model" and "Image Generation". He continued, 2.d would not be defined that way unless that was the intent. I asked would it hold up in court? He said "It'll always fall back to the license owner, which is why this is ambiguous. They very clearly release themselves from the outputs, likely because they don't want to be held liable for illegal output, which is smart. However, if they really wanted to come after you, they have some legal grounds, but it would be really unsteady since they specifically state they have no claim to output. They'd have to prove your output is illegal or was generated illegally within their license. Which would be really difficult to do unless it was obviously illegal. He then said "it's just a terrible license... Ambiguity usually falls back on other terms within the license, but 2.d. very clearly says they don't own the output, so how could they press a copyright lawsuit against something they don't own?" He finished with, "At best, they could stop you from using the model going forward, but anything you generated before the lawsuit is still yours, and they claim no ownership or responsibility for the output."

Not legal advice, consult your own lawyer

@SencneS "He did, however, clarify that the spirit of the license seems to be to separate the model from image creation."

That's it: you can make a picture book and sell it using Flux Dev, but you can't run a business by charging for the use of Flux Dev on a website or other platform (apps, etc.).

They poorly explained the difference between commercial use of the model itself and the use of creations made with the model.

We talked about this a lot even before its release ^^;