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

Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 62 posts

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#11

Post by josephernest »

emacsen wrote: post #8
elashri wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to add that this is probably not deceptive advertising. At least not intentional deceptive as many people including me didn't know that CC licenses are not meant for software and is not considered open source. I don't know if it is common misunderstanding or not but I think there is strong case to say that some people intuitively would think so.

It might not be, but I can't understand how someone who has written such advanced software, and includes a monetization plan, and then posts about it on HN also doesn't take the time to choose a license. Even if they didn't know CC wasn't suitable for software, everyone knows that non-commercial isn't Open Source. I didn't dig into the software, but I wonder if the licenses for the dependencies allow this either, eg…

> CC wasn't suitable for software

This is wrong. CC is perfectly fine for software in some cases, such as here.

Ok, CC is not tailored specifically for software, thus the general advice "you should use something else" but I do not see why CC would not be suitable here to achieve OP's goals.

Can someone explain?

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#12

Post by josephernest »

telenardo wrote: post #7
elashri wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would like to add that this is probably not deceptive advertising. At least not intentional deceptive as many people including me didn't know that CC licenses are not meant for software and is not considered open source. I don't know if it is common misunderstanding or not but I think there is strong case to say that some people intuitively would think so.

Yes, that's right. This was definitely not intentional and we are very open to changing it to something more appropriate!

I think your choice is very appropriate.

And it is open source.

Probably not OSI-open source or FSF-open source but it is open source, period.

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#13

Post by catapart »

emacsen wrote: post #3

I was so so excited to read this, then I saw the headline is deceptive. It's not Open Source; it uses a Creative Common "Non-Commercial" license. CC licenses are not meant for software. They explicitly say so on their FAQ: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... And non-commercial licenses are not Open Source, period. This has been well established since the 1990s, both by the FSF and the OSI.…

As someone developing CC0-licensed software, this had me a bit shook, so let me highlight that your link does clarify that CC0 licenses are fine for software and are entirely separate from other CC licenses.

Relevant sub-link (from OP's link): https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/CC0_FAQ#May_I_apply_CC...

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#14

Post by catapart »

Looks like a sharp utility!

Any plans to expand into non-text generation? My roadblocks with Jan (similar, as far as I can see?), were that I couldn't run any of the image generation or 3D model generation releases, so I'd be very interested in something local that was equipped for media/file output, rather than just text output.

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#15

Post by emacsen »

josephernest wrote: post #12
telenardo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's right. This was definitely not intentional and we are very open to changing it to something more appropriate!

I think your choice is very appropriate. And it is open source. Probably not OSI-open source or FSF-open source but it is open source, period.

"It's not recognized as Open Source by the Open Source body, and doesn't meet the criteria of Free/Open Source Software, but is Open Source" is a bit like saying "I used GMO and petroleum based pesticides, but my produce is all organic."

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#16

Post by emacsen »

josephernest wrote: post #11
emacsen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be, but I can't understand how someone who has written such advanced software, and includes a monetization plan, and then posts about it on HN also doesn't take the time to choose a license. Even if they didn't know CC wasn't suitable for software, everyone knows that non-commercial isn't Open Source. I didn't dig into the software, but I wonder if the licenses for the dependencies allow this either, eg…

> CC wasn't suitable for software This is wrong. CC is perfectly fine for software in some cases, such as here. Ok, CC is not tailored specifically for software, thus the general advice "you should use something else" but I do not see why CC would not be suitable here to achieve OP's goals. Can someone explain?

Software licenses, especially the more "advanced" licences such as the GPL, MPL, and others include very specific language around the issue of what is use, what is distribution, what is is connecting to, derived works, and importantly, around patents.

The CC licenses do an amazing job when it comes to artistic work such as books, movies, music, etc. but you don't have the same issues there, and that's why even CC says that they don't recommend using them for software.

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#17

Post by Jedd »

emacsen wrote: post #3

I was so so excited to read this, then I saw the headline is deceptive. It's not Open Source; it uses a Creative Common "Non-Commercial" license. CC licenses are not meant for software. They explicitly say so on their FAQ: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... And non-commercial licenses are not Open Source, period. This has been well established since the 1990s, both by the FSF and the OSI.…

> And non-commercial licenses are not Open Source, period. This has been well established since the 1990s, both by the FSF and the OSI.

That may be a bit misleading - the Free Software Foundation has long held strong opinions about the phrase 'open source'.[0]

IIRC 'open source' became formalised by the OSI around 1998 - and despite the stated intent to clarify things where arguably no clarification was needed (a lot of people felt it was not too onerous to explain the beer and speech, libre and gratis, concepts to novices) it continues to reduce clarity. Viz.

[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....*

Re: Show HN: Onit – Source-available ChatGPT Desktop with local mode, Claude, Gemini

#20

Post by bmelton »

josephernest wrote: post #11
emacsen wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It might not be, but I can't understand how someone who has written such advanced software, and includes a monetization plan, and then posts about it on HN also doesn't take the time to choose a license. Even if they didn't know CC wasn't suitable for software, everyone knows that non-commercial isn't Open Source. I didn't dig into the software, but I wonder if the licenses for the dependencies allow this either, eg…

> CC wasn't suitable for software This is wrong. CC is perfectly fine for software in some cases, such as here. Ok, CC is not tailored specifically for software, thus the general advice "you should use something else" but I do not see why CC would not be suitable here to achieve OP's goals. Can someone explain?

Creative Commons' FAQ addresses this

    Unlike software-specific licenses, CC licenses do 
    not contain specific terms about the distribution 
    of source code, which is often important to ensuring 
    the free reuse and modifiability of software. 
    Many software licenses also address patent rights, 
    which are important to software but may not be 
    applicable to other copyrightable works. Additionally,
    our licenses are currently not compatible with the 
    major software licenses, so it would be difficult to 
    integrate CC-licensed work with other free software. 
    Existing software licenses were designed specifically
    for use with software and offer a similar set of 
    rights to the Creative Commons licenses.
Post reply on HN