5 ms·

You can't use any of it commercially. Nothing within is under an acceptable software license (nor an open source license, nor a free software license). Advanced

You can't use any of it commercially. Nothing within is under an acceptable software license (nor an open source license, nor a free software license). Advanced warning.

throwaway889900 5y ago
Nobody will be able to tell if you stick it in a tiny thumbnail and give it enough jpeg artifacts.
- metagame 5y ago
  Computer-generated artifacts are non-copyrightable. This is not the problem. (That said, as the law is written, no binary should be, but we already threw that baby out with the bathwater.) The problem is that the software is not free software, but encourages you to stop using its free predecessors and competition sneakily.
  - wruza 5y ago
    Or it’s just a paranoia and they plan to license this to non-free use after a period of testing, leaving non-commercial use for those who want to play with it. That is basically what every non-free software does except the commercial support is not yet provided. Also, I second the question about free predecessors/competition, not to argue or compare, but out of pure curiosity.
  - dahart 5y ago
    I’m not sure I understand your claim, why is this encouraging anyone to stop using any competition? The license says plainly it’s not for commercial use, what’s so sneaky? What do you define as free software? This software is open source, always free as in beer, and free as in freedom for research and evaluation purposes (and seems fairly permissive to researchers…)
    - metagame 5y ago
      It by definition is not open source. The term has a definition. This breaks literally the first rule. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - dahart 5y ago
        I used, or maybe misused, the term open source. You used “free”. The license & project used neither, and made no claim to align with opensource.org’s philosophy or definition. Whatever you call it, the source code has been released for anyone to read and “evaluate”, that’s what I meant by ‘open’. You didn’t answer the question - how is this sneaky, and how does it prevent using previous projects?
        metagame 5y ago
        The Open Source Initiative coined the term to begin with. Using it incorrectly is harmful, and is how we've ended up with "literally" meaning "figuratively" in modern English. By insisting on the correct definition, I'm trying to prevent the same from happening to open source. It's pretty offensive to act like it's not a big deal to use something so essential to computing freedom in a cavalier way to intentionally lessen freedom.
        dahart 5y ago
        Literally has meant figuratively for hundreds of years, Dickens used it that way. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite... There is no “correct” definition of the term “open source”. People use it to mean many things. If it has any license other than “public domain”, then it limits some freedoms in some ways. You still didn’t back up your claims: what is sneaky, what predecessor does this license prevent use of?
        mistrial9 5y ago
        the word 'free' in English to decribe the software has been, and is problematic. It leads to a lot of heat minus light in conversation, it seems. I support direct GPL software, and, its important to make sure the person you are talking to, is using the same terms to mean the same thing, right away.
  - nimih 5y ago
    Just use the code to build a source-code auto-completion model, then wire the model up to your text editor and write new source code.
- smlacy 5y ago
  Oh really? https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-r-ffhq-1024x1024/0307.png https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-...
  - throwaway889900 5y ago
    Obviously if you're using the GAN equivalent of a Megamind meme you won't get away with it, but more reasonable ones you can.
natch 5y ago
You are talking about the models, right? If you train your own model on your own data without transfer learning (or with transfer learning from a liberally licensed third party model once those exist) then you can do whatever you want to with your model, no?
- metagame 5y ago
  I'm talking about the code. Models are distributed separately.
  - natch 5y ago
    But you can create models with the code. And then take those models you created and use them commercially. So I don't see a problem.
urthor 5y ago
Just run the whole codebase through OpenAI Codex, then regenerate the source code. Can't copyright an inferred artifact ;)

You can't use any of it commercially. Nothing within is under an acceptable software license (nor an open source license, nor a free software license). Advanced warning.

throwaway889900 5y ago

Nobody will be able to tell if you stick it in a tiny thumbnail and give it enough jpeg artifacts.

metagame 5y ago
Computer-generated artifacts are non-copyrightable. This is not the problem. (That said, as the law is written, no binary should be, but we already threw that baby out with the bathwater.) The problem is that the software is not free software, but encourages you to stop using its free predecessors and competition sneakily.
- wruza 5y ago
  Or it’s just a paranoia and they plan to license this to non-free use after a period of testing, leaving non-commercial use for those who want to play with it. That is basically what every non-free software does except the commercial support is not yet provided. Also, I second the question about free predecessors/competition, not to argue or compare, but out of pure curiosity.
- dahart 5y ago
  I’m not sure I understand your claim, why is this encouraging anyone to stop using any competition? The license says plainly it’s not for commercial use, what’s so sneaky? What do you define as free software? This software is open source, always free as in beer, and free as in freedom for research and evaluation purposes (and seems fairly permissive to researchers…)
  - metagame 5y ago
    It by definition is not open source. The term has a definition. This breaks literally the first rule. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - dahart 5y ago
      I used, or maybe misused, the term open source. You used “free”. The license & project used neither, and made no claim to align with opensource.org’s philosophy or definition. Whatever you call it, the source code has been released for anyone to read and “evaluate”, that’s what I meant by ‘open’. You didn’t answer the question - how is this sneaky, and how does it prevent using previous projects?
      - metagame 5y ago
        The Open Source Initiative coined the term to begin with. Using it incorrectly is harmful, and is how we've ended up with "literally" meaning "figuratively" in modern English. By insisting on the correct definition, I'm trying to prevent the same from happening to open source. It's pretty offensive to act like it's not a big deal to use something so essential to computing freedom in a cavalier way to intentionally lessen freedom.
        dahart 5y ago
        Literally has meant figuratively for hundreds of years, Dickens used it that way. https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-literally https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misuse-of-lite... There is no “correct” definition of the term “open source”. People use it to mean many things. If it has any license other than “public domain”, then it limits some freedoms in some ways. You still didn’t back up your claims: what is sneaky, what predecessor does this license prevent use of?
        mistrial9 5y ago
        the word 'free' in English to decribe the software has been, and is problematic. It leads to a lot of heat minus light in conversation, it seems. I support direct GPL software, and, its important to make sure the person you are talking to, is using the same terms to mean the same thing, right away.
- nimih 5y ago
  Just use the code to build a source-code auto-completion model, then wire the model up to your text editor and write new source code.
smlacy 5y ago
Oh really? https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-r-ffhq-1024x1024/0307.png https://nvlabs-fi-cdn.nvidia.com/stylegan3/images/stylegan3-...
- throwaway889900 5y ago
  Obviously if you're using the GAN equivalent of a Megamind meme you won't get away with it, but more reasonable ones you can.

natch 5y ago

You are talking about the models, right? If you train your own model on your own data without transfer learning (or with transfer learning from a liberally licensed third party model once those exist) then you can do whatever you want to with your model, no?

metagame 5y ago
I'm talking about the code. Models are distributed separately.
- natch 5y ago
  But you can create models with the code. And then take those models you created and use them commercially. So I don't see a problem.

urthor 5y ago

Just run the whole codebase through OpenAI Codex, then regenerate the source code. Can't copyright an inferred artifact ;)