3 ms·

So can you read the code while at work or not? I remain sceptical about the idea that you can't. Look at the license in question: https://github.com/facebookr

by TekMol 3y ago

So can you read the code while at work or not? I remain sceptical about the idea that you can't. Look at the license in question: https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/dinov2/blob/main/LICENSE Not a single time it talks about the act of copying and/or using the software. It constantly talks about sharing it. The consumer.org.nz page you linked to also mainly focusses on "selling" the data itself and explicitely states that you can make copies for yourself: Can I download mp3s from the internet and copy them to CD? Sure – as long as they were obtained legitimately – either purchased from an online store or from a legal free download. As we said before, if you own the music legally then you can make a copy. This seems to underline my thinking that copyright is mostly about sharing with 3rd parties. Not about the act of duplicating bytes in a technical manner or about what you do with your copy of the bytes.

mkl 3y ago
From the first section of the consumer.org.nz page (emphasis mine): "Can I make a copy of albums I own? Yes. A recent amendment to the Copyright Act means that you can copy music – in the Act as 'sound recordings' – you own for your own personal use.". No such amendment would be needed if copyright was about sharing. Same with the temporary copies in RAM. The license talks about "reproducing", which is copying. You seem to be basically saying that you think Meta's lawyers and Creative Commons's lawyers don't know how to do their jobs (and can be trivially out-thought in a couple of minutes by laypeople), which seems very unlikely.
- TekMol 3y ago
  So can you read the code while at work or not?
  - mkl 3y ago
    I don't know why you're so insistent on asking a non-lawyer for legal advice. The license says "NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation", so it depends on your reasons for reading the code (and it doesn't matter whether you do it at work or elsewhere).
    - TekMol 3y ago
      The part you quoted is from the definition of "NonCommercial". The way "NonCommercial" is then used is: the Licensor hereby grants You ... to ... a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes As you can see, it always talks about sharing the content which can only be done for NonCommercial reasons. If it wouldn't only apply to sharing but to any type of usage, why would sharing be mentioned in every paragraph? Also, in my experience, a lawyer would use "or Share" and not "and Share" if they wanted to express that the act of "reproducing" alone (whatever that means) is enough to fall under the license, even if no sharing would occur. So my feeling is still that the license deals with sharing. Not with act of using.

by TekMol 3y ago

mkl 3y ago

From the first section of the consumer.org.nz page (emphasis mine): "Can I make a copy of albums I own? Yes. A recent amendment to the Copyright Act means that you can copy music – in the Act as 'sound recordings' – you own for your own personal use.". No such amendment would be needed if copyright was about sharing. Same with the temporary copies in RAM. The license talks about "reproducing", which is copying. You seem to be basically saying that you think Meta's lawyers and Creative Commons's lawyers don't know how to do their jobs (and can be trivially out-thought in a couple of minutes by laypeople), which seems very unlikely.

TekMol 3y ago
So can you read the code while at work or not?
- mkl 3y ago
  I don't know why you're so insistent on asking a non-lawyer for legal advice. The license says "NonCommercial means not primarily intended for or directed towards commercial advantage or monetary compensation", so it depends on your reasons for reading the code (and it doesn't matter whether you do it at work or elsewhere).
  - TekMol 3y ago
    The part you quoted is from the definition of "NonCommercial". The way "NonCommercial" is then used is: the Licensor hereby grants You ... to ... a. reproduce and Share the Licensed Material, in whole or in part, for NonCommercial purposes b. produce, reproduce, and Share Adapted Material for NonCommercial purposes As you can see, it always talks about sharing the content which can only be done for NonCommercial reasons. If it wouldn't only apply to sharing but to any type of usage, why would sharing be mentioned in every paragraph? Also, in my experience, a lawyer would use "or Share" and not "and Share" if they wanted to express that the act of "reproducing" alone (whatever that means) is enough to fall under the license, even if no sharing would occur. So my feeling is still that the license deals with sharing. Not with act of using.