3 ms·
It isn't required by the license, but it is required by the primate fairness sense. A donation to the open-source project would be appropriate. Alternatively,
by logfromblammo 8y ago
It isn't required by the license, but it is required by the primate fairness sense. A donation to the open-source project would be appropriate.
Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches. Which will likely not tarnish their enjoyment of their $144k each before auction fees and taxes, but might discourage future AI/ML developers from releasing under such a permissive license in the future.
- therein 8y ago> Alternatively, the Obvious collective will be now and forevermore tagged as non-contributing leeches. Exactly. It doesn't sound like they are afraid of this but they really should be. Nobody will want to buy the next artwork of a collective with that reputation.
- gowld 8y agoThe people who pay fortunes for framed art don't know or care about open source licensing.
- Springtime 8y agoI do wonder how many art collectors who would be interested in such pieces would know or care. To me the sale was due to the way it was promoted and sold rather than any merit of the piece itself. Outside of particular tech story comment sections and who've seen the Twitter threads I'm not sure it's going to be some big controversy.