5 ms·

"Attribution Non-Commercial Sharealike" Oops. Non-Commercial. Thus not open source or free software. I'll look elsewhere.

by snvzz 4y ago

PostOnce 4y ago
https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/tree/941f911858f51c0cee6cad09d862c00bd8221204 https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/tree/941f911858f51... Looks like it was previously GPL until 2 months ago, you could use the old version
- techdragon 4y ago
  Anyone with more knowledge of the subject matter able to evaluate how much someone would lose by forking from just before this GPL license change. I’m always considering TTS technology for various things but I’m also put off by the non commercial clause.
snakers41 4y ago
We already had our issues with local corporations neglecting the license (and being in general disrespectful towards the community), so we had to change it to CC BY-NC-SA to avoid this in future.
- Hamcha 4y ago
  If you can't enforce your license how is choosing a different license helping you? After a quick glance I thought I might use this for a project of mine but NC-SA definitely killed my interest in this. I'm not a local corporation trying to get rich, but "NonCommercial" is an absolute minefield, left vague on purpose[1]. I've seen this sort of licensing on free game assets like Warsow and I think they work there (after all, the main use is to scare people away from re-using them at all) and I really wonder why something like AGPL wouldn't work better in this case. 1. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre...
- phh 4y ago
  Would you be open to AGPLv3? This mandates allowing the user to replace the code with their own, and requires publishing source code to users even if it's "hidden in the cloud". (well IANAL, so don't take my understanding as a fact)
  - snakers41 4y ago
    We used to have AGPLv3 or similar, but we decided to abandon it for the reasons I explained in this (or above) thread.
    - blagie 4y ago
      Your licensing is confused. Companies do steal software. Universities steal software. Non-profits steal software. Individuals do too. Harvard Medical School is pirating software I wrote. I raised it with them through multiple channels, and they simply didn't respond to emails. It's not worth a law suit against a $40B entity. It doesn't matter what license I used. They stole it. CC-NC-BY-SA guarantees the only entities using your software will be ones who don't mind breaking laws. "Non-commercial" is legally ill-defined, and virtually any use can appear as related to commerce in some way. It's a liability hole. If it's being used internally or on a server, you also can't enforce the SA provision. AGPLv3 is the license you want. No commercial entity working on anything proprietary will realistically touch that with a 10-foot pole, unless they're willing to break laws (but non-commercial use is okay). You can enforce SA, and get changes back. It's designed for exactly this purpose. The reasons you explained make no sense. Your logic is at the level of: "My computer was getting hot, so I got a new hard drive." "I thought my computer might have a virus, so I swapped out the RAM."
      - snakers41 4y ago
        > Companies do steal software. They do not. The do not care about them as well. > Harvard Medical School is pirating software I wrote. > It's not worth a law suit against a $40B entity. > It doesn't matter what license I used. They stole it. > You can enforce SA, and get changes back. It's designed for exactly this purpose. It can be enforced, yet you cannot enforce it. By your own logic, in real life licenses hardly matter at all.
- de6u99er 4y ago
  That's a very vague response. Can you be more specific?
- maxloh 4y ago
  You may consider the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) used by OpenStreetMap. It will be much more acceptable by the community. Details: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/About_The_Licence_Change https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/About_The_Licenc...
- grumbel 4y ago
  What does CC BY-NC-SA actually mean when applied to the model? Are the .wav files generated by it considered CC BY-NC-SA as well or only software derived from it? Would I be allowed to use the output in say a Youtube video? PS: This still points to the old AGPL license: https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/wiki/Licensing-and-Tiers https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/wiki/Licensing-and...
poulpy123 4y ago
honest question: why do you consider non-commercial not open source or free software but not attribution or sharealike ?
- jeltz 4y ago
  That has been the most common definition at least for the last 25 years. The Wikipedia article about open source is a good place to start reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
- blagie 4y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms I'd more generally point to RMS' writings from the nineties and before. They're prophetic. He gets dismissed, but it's almost scary how much he predicted correctly 30-40 years ago, and how closely open source (which started as a push-back against free software) eventually converged to what he wrote back then.
- stonemetal12 4y ago
  The OSI definition of Open source says "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." NC obviously violates the definition of Open Source. As far as I can tell it is a less well specified version of the Commons Clause license.
- snvzz 4y ago
  Both Open Source (as defined by OSI) and Free Software (as defined by FSF) do require freedom of use, by anyone, for any purpose.
- grumbel 4y ago
  Historically, not having "non-commercial" was extremely important for Free Software, as it meant people were allowed to distribute tapes, floppies and CD-ROMs for money with the software on it. We would never have had all the Linux distributions without that and nobody would have been able to get the software, as Internet for the masses was still a decade away. The modern Internet has drastically lowered that barrier and "non-commercial" is slightly less of an issue, as you no longer need a middle man handling the shipping. However servers still don't run for free and non-commercial creates the problem of defining what commercial use actually is. Is having ads on your page enough to make it commercial use? What if the ads aren't under your control, but automatically inserted by the hoster (Instagram, Youtube, Reddit, etc.)? Donations to keep the servers running can count as commercial and all that. It gets really tricky to draw the line and most people will just avoid anything with a "non-commercial" clause. Meanwhile attribution and sharealike are relatively harmless. Many Free Software licenses have required similar. They tell you exactly what rules you have to follow and don't hinder the distribution or use of it.
kevmo314 4y ago
Are there any good alternatives? I looked at Tortoise TTS but the performance is too slow. Silero is fast enough but the non-commercial license is a huge turn off. Shame since it seems like it would've been a nice project to contribute to.
thenberlin 4y ago
Yeah +1. This is impressive and I would have used it in a heartbeat for a new project I'm involved in, but the inability to even consider commercialization means going this route is dead in the water. Will be looking elsewhere.

"Attribution Non-Commercial Sharealike" Oops. Non-Commercial. Thus not open source or free software. I'll look elsewhere.

by snvzz 4y ago

"Attribution Non-Commercial Sharealike" Oops. Non-Commercial. Thus not open source or free software. I'll look elsewhere.

PostOnce 4y ago

https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/tree/941f911858f51c0cee6cad09d862c00bd8221204 https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/tree/941f911858f51... Looks like it was previously GPL until 2 months ago, you could use the old version

techdragon 4y ago
Anyone with more knowledge of the subject matter able to evaluate how much someone would lose by forking from just before this GPL license change. I’m always considering TTS technology for various things but I’m also put off by the non commercial clause.

snakers41 4y ago

We already had our issues with local corporations neglecting the license (and being in general disrespectful towards the community), so we had to change it to CC BY-NC-SA to avoid this in future.

Hamcha 4y ago
If you can't enforce your license how is choosing a different license helping you? After a quick glance I thought I might use this for a project of mine but NC-SA definitely killed my interest in this. I'm not a local corporation trying to get rich, but "NonCommercial" is an absolute minefield, left vague on purpose[1]. I've seen this sort of licensing on free game assets like Warsow and I think they work there (after all, the main use is to scare people away from re-using them at all) and I really wonder why something like AGPL wouldn't work better in this case. 1. https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpretation https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/NonCommercial_interpre...
phh 4y ago
Would you be open to AGPLv3? This mandates allowing the user to replace the code with their own, and requires publishing source code to users even if it's "hidden in the cloud". (well IANAL, so don't take my understanding as a fact)
- snakers41 4y ago
  We used to have AGPLv3 or similar, but we decided to abandon it for the reasons I explained in this (or above) thread.
  - blagie 4y ago
    Your licensing is confused. Companies do steal software. Universities steal software. Non-profits steal software. Individuals do too. Harvard Medical School is pirating software I wrote. I raised it with them through multiple channels, and they simply didn't respond to emails. It's not worth a law suit against a $40B entity. It doesn't matter what license I used. They stole it. CC-NC-BY-SA guarantees the only entities using your software will be ones who don't mind breaking laws. "Non-commercial" is legally ill-defined, and virtually any use can appear as related to commerce in some way. It's a liability hole. If it's being used internally or on a server, you also can't enforce the SA provision. AGPLv3 is the license you want. No commercial entity working on anything proprietary will realistically touch that with a 10-foot pole, unless they're willing to break laws (but non-commercial use is okay). You can enforce SA, and get changes back. It's designed for exactly this purpose. The reasons you explained make no sense. Your logic is at the level of: "My computer was getting hot, so I got a new hard drive." "I thought my computer might have a virus, so I swapped out the RAM."
    - snakers41 4y ago
      > Companies do steal software. They do not. The do not care about them as well. > Harvard Medical School is pirating software I wrote. > It's not worth a law suit against a $40B entity. > It doesn't matter what license I used. They stole it. > You can enforce SA, and get changes back. It's designed for exactly this purpose. It can be enforced, yet you cannot enforce it. By your own logic, in real life licenses hardly matter at all.
de6u99er 4y ago
That's a very vague response. Can you be more specific?
maxloh 4y ago
You may consider the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) used by OpenStreetMap. It will be much more acceptable by the community. Details: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/About_The_Licence_Change https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/About_The_Licenc...
grumbel 4y ago
What does CC BY-NC-SA actually mean when applied to the model? Are the .wav files generated by it considered CC BY-NC-SA as well or only software derived from it? Would I be allowed to use the output in say a Youtube video? PS: This still points to the old AGPL license: https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/wiki/Licensing-and-Tiers https://github.com/snakers4/silero-models/wiki/Licensing-and...

poulpy123 4y ago

honest question: why do you consider non-commercial not open source or free software but not attribution or sharealike ?

jeltz 4y ago
That has been the most common definition at least for the last 25 years. The Wikipedia article about open source is a good place to start reading. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
blagie 4y ago
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms I'd more generally point to RMS' writings from the nineties and before. They're prophetic. He gets dismissed, but it's almost scary how much he predicted correctly 30-40 years ago, and how closely open source (which started as a push-back against free software) eventually converged to what he wrote back then.
stonemetal12 4y ago
The OSI definition of Open source says "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." NC obviously violates the definition of Open Source. As far as I can tell it is a less well specified version of the Commons Clause license.
snvzz 4y ago
Both Open Source (as defined by OSI) and Free Software (as defined by FSF) do require freedom of use, by anyone, for any purpose.
grumbel 4y ago
Historically, not having "non-commercial" was extremely important for Free Software, as it meant people were allowed to distribute tapes, floppies and CD-ROMs for money with the software on it. We would never have had all the Linux distributions without that and nobody would have been able to get the software, as Internet for the masses was still a decade away. The modern Internet has drastically lowered that barrier and "non-commercial" is slightly less of an issue, as you no longer need a middle man handling the shipping. However servers still don't run for free and non-commercial creates the problem of defining what commercial use actually is. Is having ads on your page enough to make it commercial use? What if the ads aren't under your control, but automatically inserted by the hoster (Instagram, Youtube, Reddit, etc.)? Donations to keep the servers running can count as commercial and all that. It gets really tricky to draw the line and most people will just avoid anything with a "non-commercial" clause. Meanwhile attribution and sharealike are relatively harmless. Many Free Software licenses have required similar. They tell you exactly what rules you have to follow and don't hinder the distribution or use of it.

kevmo314 4y ago

Are there any good alternatives? I looked at Tortoise TTS but the performance is too slow. Silero is fast enough but the non-commercial license is a huge turn off. Shame since it seems like it would've been a nice project to contribute to.

thenberlin 4y ago

Yeah +1. This is impressive and I would have used it in a heartbeat for a new project I'm involved in, but the inability to even consider commercialization means going this route is dead in the water. Will be looking elsewhere.