Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

bdd-data.berkeley.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 54 posts

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#21

Post by moscovium »

quickben wrote: post #3

The website doesn't work in Firefox. "FAQ: The download buttons do not work". "The website is fully supported by Chrome now" The current state of the internet, has reached a very low point. One would expect more from berkley. edu . EDIT: I find the downvotes preposterous. Are we somehow supposed to expect requiring a proprietary browser to simply download a file from an educational institution now?

This appears to be a hosted site the team put together for a public front to the dataset, not an official Berkeley page. It certainly doesn't meet any standards required by a public institution, like ADA compliance, either.

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#22

Post by ghaff »

mehrdadn wrote: post #18
rectang wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Open" is not just whether you get to see it. Among other things, it's whether the software is open for all users to modify . The Open Source Definition is curated by the Open Source Initiative and has been stable for many years. A huge industry rests on top of it. https://opensource.org/osd

So you're saying neither (say) VirtualBox nor other GNU software qualify as open-source? They seem to fail the very first sentence of criterion #1, since they place restrictions on when/how you can redistribute the source/software in aggregation with other sources/software.

The GPL absolutely falls under the open source definition. You can ship GPL programs and code alongside programs that may have different licenses. What you can't do is combine GPL code with code that has incompatible licenses.

Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#23

Post by carapace »

mehrdadn wrote: post #14
rectang wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction because only Berkeley Deep Dive members can use it for commercial purposes. EDIT: The title of this HN topic is wrong. It's not what's in the source and it to be changed. (I'm relieved that it's just a submitter summarizing incorrectly and that Berkeley Deep Dive was not responsible for this mistake.)

> If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction How do usage terms dictate whether the source is open?

"Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman

> When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.”

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#24

Post by r1nkgrl »

ironjunkie wrote: post #13
MBCook wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s in DOWNLOAD button. How does it not work in EVERY browser? A link would. A form submission would. Ultra simple JavaScript would. It’s not a question of “why doesn’t chrome work“ but more a question of “how is this even an issue“.

In this case I agree with you. I was just pointing out that we should be careful with Chrome being used as a "reference".

FWIW Chrome does have the largest market share of any desktop internet browser. That said, I understand what you are getting at and agree.

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#25

Post by mehrdadn »

ghaff wrote: post #22
mehrdadn wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're saying neither (say) VirtualBox nor other GNU software qualify as open-source? They seem to fail the very first sentence of criterion #1, since they place restrictions on when/how you can redistribute the source/software in aggregation with other sources/software.

The GPL absolutely falls under the open source definition. You can ship GPL programs and code alongside programs that may have different licenses. What you can't do is combine GPL code with code that has incompatible licenses. Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.

> Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.

I wasn't saying copyleft imposes restrictions on usage.

The first "open-source" criterion says the following (and note that, like you said, this is a restriction on redistribution and not usage):

> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.

We both agree GPL places a restriction on redistribution (namely: that it must be with source code). However, criterion #1 says very clearly that the license can't place restrictions on software redistribution when it's aggregated with software from different sources.

This is a pretty clear contradiction to me. The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So I don't see how we get to ignore this and cherry-pick what restrictions actually fall under "restrictions"...

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#26

Post by rectang »

carapace wrote: post #23
mehrdadn wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction How do usage terms dictate whether the source is open?

"Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman > When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

There's a lot of interesting history between the Open Source and Free Software movements, and this is a valuable view of one side of the story. I'd recommend it for people who are interested, though I hope they would also seek out the other side.

However, we're going off topic here. The self-driving download is neither Open Source nor Free Software.

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#28

Post by koolba »

derefr wrote: post #20
MBCook wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s in DOWNLOAD button. How does it not work in EVERY browser? A link would. A form submission would. Ultra simple JavaScript would. It’s not a question of “why doesn’t chrome work“ but more a question of “how is this even an issue“.

It's a really big download (1.8TB). One where both you and they would be really rather perturbed if the download failed at 90%. In fact, they'd probably be perturbed by the bandwidth costs even if everyone who wanted the dataset was only downloading it once. Maybe it uses WebTorrent? (Not sure why it couldn't just fall back to giving you a .torrent file in that case, though.)

Why even fall back? The default for something like this should be a torrent as this is exactly what BitTorrent was supposed to solve!

Re: Berkeley Deep Drive Dataset

#29

Post by itchyjunk »

I am curious, does training the AI on other driving data sets help? What I means is, not just sedan data set. Trucks, buses, maybe 2 wheelers? Would this help the model generalize more and make better prediction of how other vehicles work or would it just add noise?
Post reply on HN