4 ms·

Its a few hundred gigabyte. You can only login with an institutional account. My research institute is very small, can I borrow someone's login credentials? (em

Its a few hundred gigabyte. You can only login with an institutional account. My research institute is very small, can I borrow someone's login credentials? (email in profile).

hackernewds 2y ago
It is not meant for non credentialed individuals?
- gus_massa 2y ago
  From the repo > Please note the (CC BY-NC 4.0) license terms, as outlined in the License section. In spite of the title and the article says "open souce" many times, it's free as in "source abailable".
- Intermernet 2y ago
  Being licensed as it is, it needs to be publicly available. This availability can be on request, but that request can be made by anyone. The watering down of the legal definitions of Open Source and Creative Commons is a death of a thousand cuts. Every single misrepresentation and false claim needs to be called out and shut down. It's hard to stress how important these concepts are to the current state of the world. Many people say "stop being pedantic" or "the source can be read, therefore it's open source". The reason you currently have a secure server operating system that can use state of the art encryption on affordable commodity hardware is that "Open Source" has a legal definition. Please, let's not break it.
  - CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
    Not trying to be pedantic, but you literally asked for false claims to be called out and shut down. There is no open source license (that I know of) which requires public availability. If there is a requirement of providing sources, it's always a requirement of providing sources with a derived work. If you are not releasing derived works to anyone you don't need to release any source to anyone either. So called permissive licenses don't even have any requirement on providing sources whatsoever.
    - foolswisdom 2y ago
      That's because license requirements are on _other_ users (who are being licensed to use it) to follow, not the owner (who _owns_ it and doesn't need to follow the license terms the owner requires of others). Nevertheless, not every license is open source, open source does have a definition, and it's not about whether the owner is following their own license.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
canadianfella 2y ago
[dead]

Its a few hundred gigabyte. You can only login with an institutional account. My research institute is very small, can I borrow someone's login credentials? (email in profile).

hackernewds 2y ago

It is not meant for non credentialed individuals?

gus_massa 2y ago
From the repo > Please note the (CC BY-NC 4.0) license terms, as outlined in the License section. In spite of the title and the article says "open souce" many times, it's free as in "source abailable".
Intermernet 2y ago
Being licensed as it is, it needs to be publicly available. This availability can be on request, but that request can be made by anyone. The watering down of the legal definitions of Open Source and Creative Commons is a death of a thousand cuts. Every single misrepresentation and false claim needs to be called out and shut down. It's hard to stress how important these concepts are to the current state of the world. Many people say "stop being pedantic" or "the source can be read, therefore it's open source". The reason you currently have a secure server operating system that can use state of the art encryption on affordable commodity hardware is that "Open Source" has a legal definition. Please, let's not break it.
- CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
  Not trying to be pedantic, but you literally asked for false claims to be called out and shut down. There is no open source license (that I know of) which requires public availability. If there is a requirement of providing sources, it's always a requirement of providing sources with a derived work. If you are not releasing derived works to anyone you don't need to release any source to anyone either. So called permissive licenses don't even have any requirement on providing sources whatsoever.
  - foolswisdom 2y ago
    That's because license requirements are on _other_ users (who are being licensed to use it) to follow, not the owner (who _owns_ it and doesn't need to follow the license terms the owner requires of others). Nevertheless, not every license is open source, open source does have a definition, and it's not about whether the owner is following their own license.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

canadianfella 2y ago

[dead]