6 ms·

> This repository is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which prohibits commercial usage. MyShell reserves t

> This repository is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which prohibits commercial usage. MyShell reserves the ability to detect whether an audio is generated by OpenVoice, no matter whether the watermark is added or not. So it is not 'open' then and you cannot make money out of this?

DandyDev 3y ago
It is open, just not by your definition. You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content. Sounds pretty open to me!
- jahewson 3y ago
  Open for business! No wait…
- CaptainFever 3y ago
  To be specific, while it is not a bad license, it does not quality for the Free Cultural Works mark as defined by the Creative Commons and Freedom Defined: https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/
- bbor 3y ago
  Well… “use” isn’t exactly free, this the complaint. On a scale of free to not free, “cannot use this for my work” is a pretty big jump to the latter end IMO
  - c0pium 3y ago
    Careful, you’re saying the quiet part out loud; freedom is about profiting off the uncompensated work of others.
    - bbor 3y ago
      Well ultimately we all need to eat. If someone wants to be compensated in today’s society, they either need to join a gift-based sub-society (see: OSS foundations, NGOs in general) or sell something. Trust me, I totally agree that freedom of information should be a completely separate concern from resource allocation EDIT: I guess there’s a third option, “work another job and use OSS on your off hours”. Which feels… idk, disrespectful of the whole enterprise. OSS software development is important enough to deserve a wage IMO, to say the least
      - satvikpendem 3y ago
        To your last point, people pay what the market will bear. In this case, it's free, so don't be surprised that if you give something away for free that people, well, take it for free. Importance has nothing to do with it.
- beardog 3y ago
  As long as your hearts content isn't commercial
- cjbprime 3y ago
  And not by opensource.org's definition, which prohibits use restrictions. It's not reasonable to act like OP is being idiosyncratic when this fails to meet the protected definition of "open source".
  - DandyDev 3y ago
    I admit not to have read the whole paper, but in the intro nowhere do they mention “open source”, so it seems unfair to measure them by that definition
  - gpm 3y ago
    The term "open source" is not protected, the OSI (opensource.org) attempted and failed to acquire a trademark on that term.
    - cjbprime 3y ago
      Fair enough. Is there any shared definition of "open source" which permits use restrictions, then?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- abetusk 3y ago
  By the commonly held definition of open, in the context of "open source", it is not open. > You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content. The non-commercial clause of their license specifically prohibits commercial use, so we cannot use this source, and presumably the data that the source uses, to our hearts content. The OSI has a definition of open source that clearly states commercial use is required [0]. Wikipedias entry on Open Source Licensing also stipulates that commercial re-use is required [1]. There is a term called "source available" which is more in line with your intent. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
  - DandyDev 3y ago
    Where do they claim to be “open source”?
    - abetusk 3y ago
      In their README in the GitHub repository as well as the paper. I opened an issue [0] and it looks like they've updated their README, at least, to reflect that it's not open source. [0] https://github.com/myshell-ai/OpenVoice/issues/16 https://github.com/myshell-ai/OpenVoice/issues/16
  - nl 3y ago
    > commonly held definition of open, in the context of "open source", it is not open While this is very true, the context of "open source" can't be assumed.
throwup238 3y ago
You can’t. Scammers who don’t care about noncommercial licenses sure can!
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  Yep, this is one of those "only bad actors" licenses, probably as a cash grab. It will definitely stop those bad actors from scamming people this time, right? Right?
- evanmoran 3y ago
  This is the most insightful take. Licenses like this prevent certain businesses in certain countries, but it is quite harmful as it adds a powerful tool for propaganda/scammers/etc who don’t care about the laws. Additionally, it only really hurts small businesses & startups as the big companies all have teams that can make their own version or pay for 3rd party apis for easily. So yeah, us startup folks won’t like this license much as it basically is aimed at us the most. Either way, congrats with the tech. It does look very impressive!
  - cyanydeez 3y ago
    erm, it's existence provides to scammers. unless you're proposing it's use in detecting itself is some how symmetrical, which I really don't think is anything but unproven conjecture.

DandyDev 3y ago

It is open, just not by your definition. You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content. Sounds pretty open to me!

jahewson 3y ago
Open for business! No wait…
CaptainFever 3y ago
To be specific, while it is not a bad license, it does not quality for the Free Cultural Works mark as defined by the Creative Commons and Freedom Defined: https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/ https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/
bbor 3y ago
Well… “use” isn’t exactly free, this the complaint. On a scale of free to not free, “cannot use this for my work” is a pretty big jump to the latter end IMO
- c0pium 3y ago
  Careful, you’re saying the quiet part out loud; freedom is about profiting off the uncompensated work of others.
  - bbor 3y ago
    Well ultimately we all need to eat. If someone wants to be compensated in today’s society, they either need to join a gift-based sub-society (see: OSS foundations, NGOs in general) or sell something. Trust me, I totally agree that freedom of information should be a completely separate concern from resource allocation EDIT: I guess there’s a third option, “work another job and use OSS on your off hours”. Which feels… idk, disrespectful of the whole enterprise. OSS software development is important enough to deserve a wage IMO, to say the least
    - satvikpendem 3y ago
      To your last point, people pay what the market will bear. In this case, it's free, so don't be surprised that if you give something away for free that people, well, take it for free. Importance has nothing to do with it.
beardog 3y ago
As long as your hearts content isn't commercial
cjbprime 3y ago
And not by opensource.org's definition, which prohibits use restrictions. It's not reasonable to act like OP is being idiosyncratic when this fails to meet the protected definition of "open source".
- DandyDev 3y ago
  I admit not to have read the whole paper, but in the intro nowhere do they mention “open source”, so it seems unfair to measure them by that definition
- gpm 3y ago
  The term "open source" is not protected, the OSI (opensource.org) attempted and failed to acquire a trademark on that term.
  - cjbprime 3y ago
    Fair enough. Is there any shared definition of "open source" which permits use restrictions, then?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
abetusk 3y ago
By the commonly held definition of open, in the context of "open source", it is not open. > You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content. The non-commercial clause of their license specifically prohibits commercial use, so we cannot use this source, and presumably the data that the source uses, to our hearts content. The OSI has a definition of open source that clearly states commercial use is required [0]. Wikipedias entry on Open Source Licensing also stipulates that commercial re-use is required [1]. There is a term called "source available" which is more in line with your intent. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license
- DandyDev 3y ago
  Where do they claim to be “open source”?
  - abetusk 3y ago
    In their README in the GitHub repository as well as the paper. I opened an issue [0] and it looks like they've updated their README, at least, to reflect that it's not open source. [0] https://github.com/myshell-ai/OpenVoice/issues/16 https://github.com/myshell-ai/OpenVoice/issues/16
- nl 3y ago
  > commonly held definition of open, in the context of "open source", it is not open While this is very true, the context of "open source" can't be assumed.

throwup238 3y ago

You can’t. Scammers who don’t care about noncommercial licenses sure can!

pclmulqdq 3y ago
Yep, this is one of those "only bad actors" licenses, probably as a cash grab. It will definitely stop those bad actors from scamming people this time, right? Right?
evanmoran 3y ago
This is the most insightful take. Licenses like this prevent certain businesses in certain countries, but it is quite harmful as it adds a powerful tool for propaganda/scammers/etc who don’t care about the laws. Additionally, it only really hurts small businesses & startups as the big companies all have teams that can make their own version or pay for 3rd party apis for easily. So yeah, us startup folks won’t like this license much as it basically is aimed at us the most. Either way, congrats with the tech. It does look very impressive!
- cyanydeez 3y ago
  erm, it's existence provides to scammers. unless you're proposing it's use in detecting itself is some how symmetrical, which I really don't think is anything but unproven conjecture.