4 ms·

> MIT license > Before using these models, you agree to [...] No, this is not MIT. If you don't like MIT license then feel free to use something else, but you

> MIT license > Before using these models, you agree to [...] No, this is not MIT. If you don't like MIT license then feel free to use something else, but you can't pretend this is open source and then attempt to slap on additional restrictions on how the code can be used.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
sandslides 3y ago
Yes, I noticed that. Doesn't seem right does it
weego 3y ago
I think you mis-parsed the disclaimer. It's just warning people that cloned voices come with a different set of rights to the software (because the person the voice is a clone of has rights to their voice).
- chrismorgan 3y ago
  (Don’t let’s derail the conversation, please, but “disclaimer” is completely the wrong word here. This is a condition of use. A disclaimer is “this isn’t mine” or “I’m not responsible for this”. Disclaimers and disclosures are quite different things and commonly confused, but this isn’t even either of them.)
  - gosub100 3y ago
    This always annoys me when people put "disclaimers" on their posts. IANAL, so tired of hearing that one. It's pointless because even if you were a lawyer, you cannot meaningfully comment on a case without the details, jurisdiction, circumstance, etc. Next, it's meaningless because is anyone going to blindly bow down and obey if you state the opposite? "Yes, I AM a lawyer, you do not need to pay taxes, they are unconstitutional." Thirdly, when they "disclaimer" themselves as working at google, that's not a dis-claimer, thats a "claimer", asserting the affirmative. I know their companies require them to not speak for the company without permission, but I hardly ever hear that one, usually its just some useless self-disclosure that they might be biased because they work there. Ok, who isn't biased? What bugs me overall is that it's usually vapid mimicry of a phrase they don't even understand.
    - nielsole 3y ago
      Ianal, but giving legal advice without being a lawyer may be illegal in some jurisdictions. Not sure if the disclaimer is effective or was ever tested in court. The disclaimer/disclosure mix-up is super annoying, but disclosing obvious biases even if not legally required seems like good practice to me.
gpm 3y ago
As I understand it the source code is licensed MIT, the weights are licensed "weird proprietary license that doesn't explicitly grant you any rights and implicitly probably grants you some usage rights so long as you tell the listeners or have permission from the voice you cloned". Which, if you think the weights are copyright-able in the first place, makes them practically unusable for anything commercial/that you might get sued over because relying on a vague implicit license is definitely not a good idea.
- ronsor 3y ago
  And if you don't think weights are copyrightable, it means nothing at all.
IshKebab 3y ago
I think that's referring to the pre-trained models, not the source code.
ericra 3y ago
This bothered me as well. I opened an issue on the repo asking them to consider updating the license file to reflect these additional requirements. The wording they currently use suggests that this additional license requirement applies not only to their pre-trained models.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pdntspa 3y ago
As if anyone outside of corporate legal actually cares

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

sandslides 3y ago

Yes, I noticed that. Doesn't seem right does it

weego 3y ago

I think you mis-parsed the disclaimer. It's just warning people that cloned voices come with a different set of rights to the software (because the person the voice is a clone of has rights to their voice).

chrismorgan 3y ago
(Don’t let’s derail the conversation, please, but “disclaimer” is completely the wrong word here. This is a condition of use. A disclaimer is “this isn’t mine” or “I’m not responsible for this”. Disclaimers and disclosures are quite different things and commonly confused, but this isn’t even either of them.)
- gosub100 3y ago
  This always annoys me when people put "disclaimers" on their posts. IANAL, so tired of hearing that one. It's pointless because even if you were a lawyer, you cannot meaningfully comment on a case without the details, jurisdiction, circumstance, etc. Next, it's meaningless because is anyone going to blindly bow down and obey if you state the opposite? "Yes, I AM a lawyer, you do not need to pay taxes, they are unconstitutional." Thirdly, when they "disclaimer" themselves as working at google, that's not a dis-claimer, thats a "claimer", asserting the affirmative. I know their companies require them to not speak for the company without permission, but I hardly ever hear that one, usually its just some useless self-disclosure that they might be biased because they work there. Ok, who isn't biased? What bugs me overall is that it's usually vapid mimicry of a phrase they don't even understand.
  - nielsole 3y ago
    Ianal, but giving legal advice without being a lawyer may be illegal in some jurisdictions. Not sure if the disclaimer is effective or was ever tested in court. The disclaimer/disclosure mix-up is super annoying, but disclosing obvious biases even if not legally required seems like good practice to me.

gpm 3y ago

As I understand it the source code is licensed MIT, the weights are licensed "weird proprietary license that doesn't explicitly grant you any rights and implicitly probably grants you some usage rights so long as you tell the listeners or have permission from the voice you cloned". Which, if you think the weights are copyright-able in the first place, makes them practically unusable for anything commercial/that you might get sued over because relying on a vague implicit license is definitely not a good idea.

ronsor 3y ago
And if you don't think weights are copyrightable, it means nothing at all.

IshKebab 3y ago

I think that's referring to the pre-trained models, not the source code.

ericra 3y ago

This bothered me as well. I opened an issue on the repo asking them to consider updating the license file to reflect these additional requirements. The wording they currently use suggests that this additional license requirement applies not only to their pre-trained models.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pdntspa 3y ago

As if anyone outside of corporate legal actually cares