3 ms·
I have been thinking about what this solves in respect to other datasets. Nearly all shape recognition datasets have a restriction that you can't use unless you
by zitterbewegung 9y ago
I have been thinking about what this solves in respect to other datasets. Nearly all shape recognition datasets have a restriction that you can't use unless you are an academic. I feel like that Open Sourcing data sets will allow us to be more democratic with data and the things that are generated by them. Creative Commons seems like a good license for this though. Once you have the data is half the battle . The rest is to make open models (google is good at this) and then you could take pretrained models and not have your data leave your house . I hope and dream we can do this.
- vog 9y ago> Creative Commons seems like a good license for this though I don't think that CC licenses are a good fit for data collections in general. Let's see what other open data projects do: Some open data projects were not satisfied with CC licenses, which is why ODbL was created: https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Also, many open data projects choose to put their stuff into the public domain (or license it as "CC0" which means exactly the same). This is, for example, what Wikidata does: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page (Wikidata the structured sister project of Wikipedia.)
- zitterbewegung 9y agoI agree that CC licenses aren't a good fit for data collections. I have been meaning to create a new license but I don't have the expertise or credibility to reasonably market it. ODbL seems really close to what I was envisioning. Thanks!
- nerdponx 9y agoNearly all shape recognition datasets have a restriction that you can't use unless you are an academic. I feel like that Open Sourcing data sets will allow us to be more democratic with data Just because something is open source doesn't mean it can't have an academia-only restriction. Data sets should cost money in for-profit uses, open or not.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoAcademia doesn't cover all non-profit uses though. What about hobbyists?
- zitterbewegung 9y agoI agree that people who use a dataset for profit should be required for a for profit use. I didn't mean to imply that academics should give their data away for free. Maybe there needs to be a way for academics to sell their data or any other tangible benefit.
- tuukkah 9y ago“Open data and content can be freely used, modified, and shared by anyone for any purpose” http://opendefinition.org/ http://opendefinition.org/ "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- nerdponx 9y agoInteresting. So is a nominally open-source program like RStudio not actually open-source because enterprise uses need a license?
- SloopJon 9y agoIt looks like RStudio is AGPL v3, which is a free and open source license. Enterprise users only need a different license if they don't want to abide by the AGPL's strong copyleft requirements.
- tuukkah 9y agoOpen data is a concept separate from free and open source software. However, they have similar concerns such as copyleft: GPL for source code and ODbL for data both require changes to be published. Outside of copyleft, Creative Commons 4.0 licenses (CC-BY 4.0, CC-BY-SA 4.0, CC0) from 2013 are good licenses for open data: https://theodi.org/blog/cc-40-and-open-data https://theodi.org/blog/cc-40-and-open-data