This is as transparent as hell. It reminds me of a TV show where a bunch of idiots plot to murder someone so they decide that if they all pull the trigger together, none of them are "technically" the murderer. Of course, that just meant they were all culpable.
It's only a few layers of abstraction above "we didn't ban these books, we flipped a coin to decide whether to ban them and fate chose tails..."
Pathetic.
I used to agree until I saw corporations starting to fork open source projects to run them internally like the "I made this" meme.
If I spend months or years of my life toiling over a project and license it permissively with MIT or such, they can just swoop in one day and take it for free and be like "thanks, we're going to make mega bucks off your code and give you nothing" (and yes this does happen https://www.elastic.co/blog/why-license-change-aws).
No, screw that! I'm gonna make my stuff AGPL and those guys can damn well pay me for my time of they want to use my stuff or more cynically, do it anyway or go and reimplement it themselves in-house knowing damn well I can't afford an army of lawyers to actually do anything about it.
Counter counterpoint: Often frontend js code is minified so that it is smaller and more efficient to transfer to the browser. For FOSS projects you should still be able to get access to that code, unminified, from the project git repo. In the same way desktop apps often ship as binary executables but you can still see the code that was compiled to build them if you find the source repo.
It does make things harder to debug for an average user but it makes it faster/more efficient to run for most end users (in the case of the desktop or phone app it makes it possible to run without needing compiler toolchains that mom and pop likely wouldn't be able to grasp).
The key thing isn't that what the end user's computer runs is readable and editable but whether the code used to build that artifact is available easily and what restrictions there are on editing and redistributing that code.
TL;DR The new method still requires his art.
LoRA is a way to add additional layers to a neural network that effectively allow you to fine tune it's behaviour. Think of it like a "plugin" or a "mod"
LoRas require examples of the thing you are targeting. Lots of people in the SD community build them for particular celebrities or art styles by collecting examples of the that celebrity or whatever from online.
So in this case Greg has asked Stable to remove his artwork which they have done but some third party has created an unofficial LoRA that does use his artwork to mod the functionality back in.
In the traditional world the rights holder would presumably DMCA the plugin but the lines are much blurrier with LoRA models.
I think I watched the same one. I think the three seashells will revolutionise the bathroom experience.