4 ms·

Once again, Facebook tries to have their cake and eat it too. This model is not open source, despite the claim. https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/

Once again, Facebook tries to have their cake and eat it too. This model is not open source, despite the claim. https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/blob/main/LICE... The source is available to view and use under a non-commercial license. It's extremely frustrating that major AI players are trying to shoehorn a redefinition of a term that's well-understood, just to further their reputation.

squokko 3y ago
"Open source" is not "free software." This is absolutely open source and will enable a lot of academic, governmental, and nonprofit uses. Just because it doesn't allow someone else to make money from it doesn't make it not open source.
- thrtythreeforty 3y ago
  https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/, specifically: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > 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. It's true that people are starting to make a distinction between "free software" and "open source," but generally the distinction is smaller than what you're saying. The broader class of programs whose code is available for viewing and (potential) use or modification subject to restrictions, has been called "source available," and I think that's a great description of what it is and sets expectations well. You may or may not have a license to use it, but you can see the source code. For example, the Business Source License is generally not considered open-source. It places restrictions on what you can do. I kind of hate being pedantic about this, but I also dislike the deliberate misuse of the term, especially by a company that is obviously quite familiar with publishing large amounts of high-quality software that's genuinely open source.
- mindcrime 3y ago
  Just because it doesn't allow someone else to make money from it doesn't make it not open source. Actually it does, per the OSD[1]. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- jacooper 3y ago
  This is source available, not open source.
  - nextaccountic 3y ago
    Indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software > Source-available software is software released through a source code distribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.
lanza 3y ago
You don't understand what opensource means...
mindcrime 3y ago
Welp, I guess it can't hurt to ask: https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/pull/6 https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/pull/6
- kian 3y ago
  Looks like you need to sign their contributors' license before they'll even look at that.
godelski 3y ago
There's a lot of people arguing about OSS vs FOSS. opensource.org has a specific definition but this is not universally accepted (there's a lot on this in the wiki page btw). Stallman even wrote about this[0]. If you're passionately arguing and downvoting others that are claiming that ImageBind is in fact OSS then you're also actively demonstrating naivety. Definitions are not always universal and this is an easy to verify example. Instead of just posting another link to opensource.org read their about section[1] and consider why that leads to non-universality. And maybe also consider the words themselves: is the source available? Even if the only correct definition were from opensource.org, I'd expect everyone here to have some understanding why others might be confused since the words imply something different. There's some evidence to the other side's view, so it isn't obscene or idiotic. You don't have to accept the other view, just consider its existence. Take a step back and consider that your view isn't the only possible one. Maybe we can have more constructive discussions if we do so. We don't need these holy wars, they don't accomplish anything. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... [1] https://opensource.org/about/ https://opensource.org/about/
- getcrunk 3y ago
  It’s not about what views are possible. It’s about honesty and humility which are both things the modern world doesn’t seem to care about. The more narrow definition of oss (rms/gnu) is un ambiguous as is the meaning of source available. People choosing to use oss with the ambiguous meaning are liable for their ambiguity, and therefore worthy of op’s criticism.
  - two_in_one 3y ago
    Terms wars. I'm glad we don't have to say 'GNU Linux' anymore.
    - jlokier 3y ago
      True. We call it 'Android' now, or 'ChromeOS'. Some argue we should acknowledge the important historical contribution made by the Linux project to the most widely used operating system in the world, but others argue that Linux is only a small component in a larger system, especially when they count lines of code, so it does not merit mention. /s (Above is a paraphrase of the now old argument why GNU did or did not merit mention in names of Linux-based operating systems. Now we have reached the point where Linux doesn't get a mention either).
two_in_one 3y ago
Definition or not this is much better than nothing. Personally I'm interested in how did they do it. They have resources to experiment and try different ways. And they share the ideas. Big thanks for that.

squokko 3y ago

"Open source" is not "free software." This is absolutely open source and will enable a lot of academic, governmental, and nonprofit uses. Just because it doesn't allow someone else to make money from it doesn't make it not open source.

thrtythreeforty 3y ago
https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/, specifically: > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > 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. It's true that people are starting to make a distinction between "free software" and "open source," but generally the distinction is smaller than what you're saying. The broader class of programs whose code is available for viewing and (potential) use or modification subject to restrictions, has been called "source available," and I think that's a great description of what it is and sets expectations well. You may or may not have a license to use it, but you can see the source code. For example, the Business Source License is generally not considered open-source. It places restrictions on what you can do. I kind of hate being pedantic about this, but I also dislike the deliberate misuse of the term, especially by a company that is obviously quite familiar with publishing large amounts of high-quality software that's genuinely open source.
mindcrime 3y ago
Just because it doesn't allow someone else to make money from it doesn't make it not open source. Actually it does, per the OSD[1]. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
jacooper 3y ago
This is source available, not open source.
- nextaccountic 3y ago
  Indeed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software > Source-available software is software released through a source code distribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.

lanza 3y ago

You don't understand what opensource means...

mindcrime 3y ago

Welp, I guess it can't hurt to ask: https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/pull/6 https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/pull/6

kian 3y ago
Looks like you need to sign their contributors' license before they'll even look at that.

godelski 3y ago

There's a lot of people arguing about OSS vs FOSS. opensource.org has a specific definition but this is not universally accepted (there's a lot on this in the wiki page btw). Stallman even wrote about this[0]. If you're passionately arguing and downvoting others that are claiming that ImageBind is in fact OSS then you're also actively demonstrating naivety. Definitions are not always universal and this is an easy to verify example. Instead of just posting another link to opensource.org read their about section[1] and consider why that leads to non-universality. And maybe also consider the words themselves: is the source available? Even if the only correct definition were from opensource.org, I'd expect everyone here to have some understanding why others might be confused since the words imply something different. There's some evidence to the other side's view, so it isn't obscene or idiotic. You don't have to accept the other view, just consider its existence. Take a step back and consider that your view isn't the only possible one. Maybe we can have more constructive discussions if we do so. We don't need these holy wars, they don't accomplish anything. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... [1] https://opensource.org/about/ https://opensource.org/about/

getcrunk 3y ago
It’s not about what views are possible. It’s about honesty and humility which are both things the modern world doesn’t seem to care about. The more narrow definition of oss (rms/gnu) is un ambiguous as is the meaning of source available. People choosing to use oss with the ambiguous meaning are liable for their ambiguity, and therefore worthy of op’s criticism.
- two_in_one 3y ago
  Terms wars. I'm glad we don't have to say 'GNU Linux' anymore.
  - jlokier 3y ago
    True. We call it 'Android' now, or 'ChromeOS'. Some argue we should acknowledge the important historical contribution made by the Linux project to the most widely used operating system in the world, but others argue that Linux is only a small component in a larger system, especially when they count lines of code, so it does not merit mention. /s (Above is a paraphrase of the now old argument why GNU did or did not merit mention in names of Linux-based operating systems. Now we have reached the point where Linux doesn't get a mention either).

two_in_one 3y ago

Definition or not this is much better than nothing. Personally I'm interested in how did they do it. They have resources to experiment and try different ways. And they share the ideas. Big thanks for that.