3 ms·
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!
by 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 agoOpen for business! No wait…
- CaptainFever 3y agoTo 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 agoWell… “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 agoCareful, you’re saying the quiet part out loud; freedom is about profiting off the uncompensated work of others.
- bbor 3y agoWell 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 agoTo 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 agoAs long as your hearts content isn't commercial
- cjbprime 3y agoAnd 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 agoI 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 agoThe term "open source" is not protected, the OSI (opensource.org) attempted and failed to acquire a trademark on that term.
- cjbprime 3y agoFair enough. Is there any shared definition of "open source" which permits use restrictions, then?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- abetusk 3y agoBy 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 agoWhere do they claim to be “open source”?
- abetusk 3y agoIn 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.