3 ms·
> IMO the situation is closer to "source is open, but if you want to use our published binaries commercially, pay us". In such a circumstance you can still com
by JoshTriplett 3y ago
> IMO the situation is closer to "source is open, but if you want to use our published binaries commercially, pay us".
In such a circumstance you can still compile the source yourself. In this case, you cannot.
Also:
> Coqui is also innovating in open source model licensing.
"innovating" by making something that isn't open and falsely calling it "open source". And even that isn't "innovating" because a few others are already engaging in the same false advertising.
- nmfisher 3y agoIn this case, you can train it yourself. That’s why I think it’s a fair comparison.
- JoshTriplett 3y agoIt's not at all obvious if they're providing sufficient training data to do so. "Supply your own training data" seems the equivalent of "supply your own source code".
- 3np 3y agoYeah, it feels akin to claiming your obfuscated binary libraries and apps are open source because you happened to release the in-house-built compiler used to make them under a free license.