4 ms·
I wonder how they arrived at Creative Commons' CC-BY-NC as the license. These licenses are not meant for code but for artwork, Creative Commons actually discour
by black_puppydog 8y ago
I wonder how they arrived at Creative Commons' CC-BY-NC as the license. These licenses are not meant for code but for artwork, Creative Commons actually discourage the use of their licenses for code [1].
I recently noticed the same with the FastPhotoStyle code [2] by nvidia, so I'm wondering if there is something that draws their legal departments to this license?
[1]: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
[2]: https://github.com/NVIDIA/FastPhotoStyle https://github.com/NVIDIA/FastPhotoStyle
- detaro 8y agodiscourage people that aren't just hobbyists messing around from using it?
- black_puppydog 8y agoyeah, that's what I came up with myself. But I thought a main point, if not the whole point of publishing code for these companies was to appeal to developer-types who are fond of real open source/science. And those should be able to tell the difference... It's a bit like allowing your scientists to publish their research, but only in prohibitively expensive and thus exceedingly niche journals.
- dr_zoidberg 8y agoHmmm... I guess it's been selected that way because it'd covevr the model files and the datasets. It's not about the code as much as the datasets/models.
- levesque 8y agoIf the dataset it was trained on is CC-BY-NC, I'm pretty sure the model also has to be CC-BY-NC. However I think this is not respected, or even considered by most people. I'd go with limiting how competitors can use it as the main deciding factor.
- rhizome 8y agoThey want to be the only people who can sell this where the real money is: military and law enforcement.