4 ms·
I wonder if you might say something more substantial? This seems like a low effort nitpick as written.
by csours 2y ago
I wonder if you might say something more substantial? This seems like a low effort nitpick as written.
- spookie 2y agoFails at criteria 6.
- fc417fc802 2y agoPointing out a material misrepresentation is hardly a nitpick. I'm quite surprised to see an MIT affiliated publication making such an error. That said since it isn't source code I think the end result is probably a bit different. Unless I misunderstand something you could still use the data to further a commercial venture. You just can't directly commercialize the dataset itself. Conceptually similar to using a GPL'd software tool as an end user while performing work on a proprietary project.
- gus_massa 2y agoI don't know how you can use this for a comercial task. For example CC explains you can't use a CC-NC song in a comercial video. I expect that if you use the data to design a car and sell it the authors will have a similar interpretation.
- fc417fc802 2y agoWouldn't that be because you directly commercialize the video and the song is part of the video? Therefore you are directly commercializing the song. It doesn't seem like there would be any legal barrier to feeding the dataset into an algorithm and making use of the result (depending on the implementation details of the algorithm I suppose).