5 ms·

CC-BY-NC Isn't an open source licence, it violates point six of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

hackernewds 3y ago
who gets to declare what is the "open source definition" and why?
- BearhatBeer 3y ago
  [dead]
- frognumber 3y ago
  In my opinion, the Free Software Foundation, ironically, since they invented the movement, with open source starting out as a tacky rip-off with the ethics stripped out. After decades, open source converged on free software. More popular opinion is OSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative They were founded by the persons who (claimed to have) invented the term in order to steward it. It's the same definition as the FSF.
- xdennis 3y ago
  The people who created the term: the Open Source Initiative. Before, people most often used "free software" as defined by the free software movement, but some disliked this term because it's confusing (most think "free" means no money) and perceived to be anti-commercial. The term "open source software" was chosen and given a precise definition. It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation when it was specifically chosen to avoid confusion.
  - OrangeMusic 3y ago
    > It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation I disagree. You're saying that they "invented" the term, but it's a very generic term. The source is open, it's open source. I bet people were using the term before they claim they invented it. In that context, it is very fine to use a different definition and in fact here's my definition, and I guess most people (maybe not on HN) share it: if the source is visible by the general public, it's open source. For what you mean, I use "FLOSS".
barbariangrunge 3y ago
Companies just putting “open” in the names of non-open things to make hn and the press automatically love it
mesebrec 3y ago
Where does it say this is CC-BY-NC? The article says this: > Our audio research framework and training code is released under the MIT license to enable the broader community to reproduce and build on top of our work
- gnaman 3y ago
  https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/blob/main/LICENSE_weights https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/blob/main/LIC...
- btown 3y ago
  It's pretty common in academic research for trained model weights to be licensed under something different from the code that one would run to create such a model if one had both sufficient compute resources and the same training dataset. That is, if those weights are ever released at all! IMO, while I'd rather have one part permissively licensed than nothing at all... it stinks that companies sponsoring researchers get an un-nuanced level of street cred for "open sourcing" something that they know nobody will ever be able to reproduce because their data set and/or their compute grid's optimizations are proprietary. As it stands, I'm not at all sure that the outputs of this model can be used for commercial videos.
7moritz7 3y ago
One day the FOSS community will implode over ethics and licenses when the coolest thing ever gets released

hackernewds 3y ago

who gets to declare what is the "open source definition" and why?

BearhatBeer 3y ago
[dead]
frognumber 3y ago
In my opinion, the Free Software Foundation, ironically, since they invented the movement, with open source starting out as a tacky rip-off with the ethics stripped out. After decades, open source converged on free software. More popular opinion is OSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative They were founded by the persons who (claimed to have) invented the term in order to steward it. It's the same definition as the FSF.
xdennis 3y ago
The people who created the term: the Open Source Initiative. Before, people most often used "free software" as defined by the free software movement, but some disliked this term because it's confusing (most think "free" means no money) and perceived to be anti-commercial. The term "open source software" was chosen and given a precise definition. It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation when it was specifically chosen to avoid confusion.
- OrangeMusic 3y ago
  > It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation I disagree. You're saying that they "invented" the term, but it's a very generic term. The source is open, it's open source. I bet people were using the term before they claim they invented it. In that context, it is very fine to use a different definition and in fact here's my definition, and I guess most people (maybe not on HN) share it: if the source is visible by the general public, it's open source. For what you mean, I use "FLOSS".

barbariangrunge 3y ago

Companies just putting “open” in the names of non-open things to make hn and the press automatically love it

mesebrec 3y ago

Where does it say this is CC-BY-NC? The article says this: > Our audio research framework and training code is released under the MIT license to enable the broader community to reproduce and build on top of our work

gnaman 3y ago
https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/blob/main/LICENSE_weights https://github.com/facebookresearch/audiocraft/blob/main/LIC...
btown 3y ago
It's pretty common in academic research for trained model weights to be licensed under something different from the code that one would run to create such a model if one had both sufficient compute resources and the same training dataset. That is, if those weights are ever released at all! IMO, while I'd rather have one part permissively licensed than nothing at all... it stinks that companies sponsoring researchers get an un-nuanced level of street cred for "open sourcing" something that they know nobody will ever be able to reproduce because their data set and/or their compute grid's optimizations are proprietary. As it stands, I'm not at all sure that the outputs of this model can be used for commercial videos.

7moritz7 3y ago

One day the FOSS community will implode over ethics and licenses when the coolest thing ever gets released