11–20 of 63 posts
You can't use any of it commercially. Nothing within is under an acceptable software license (nor an open source license, nor a free software license). Advanced warning.
You are talking about the models, right? If you train your own model on your own data without transfer learning (or with transfer learning from a liberally licensed third party model once those exist) then you can do whatever you want to with your model, no?
From the license file: > 3.4 Patent Claims. If you bring or threaten to bring a patent claim against any Licensor (including any claim, cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) to enforce any patents that you allege are infringed by any Work, then your rights under this License from such Licensor (including the grant in Section 2.1) will terminate immediately. Is such a clause legal? I have basically zero knowledge…
From the license file: > 3.4 Patent Claims. If you bring or threaten to bring a patent claim against any Licensor (including any claim, cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) to enforce any patents that you allege are infringed by any Work, then your rights under this License from such Licensor (including the grant in Section 2.1) will terminate immediately. Is such a clause legal? I have basically zero knowledge…
From the license file: > 3.4 Patent Claims. If you bring or threaten to bring a patent claim against any Licensor (including any claim, cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) to enforce any patents that you allege are infringed by any Work, then your rights under this License from such Licensor (including the grant in Section 2.1) will terminate immediately. Is such a clause legal? I have basically zero knowledge…
Yes they are legal, and I'm not sure I follow the argument that they shouldn't be
But at the same time, it's definitely legal, for better or for worse, as is pretty much any stunt you pull with the joke that is US IP law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody will be able to tell if you stick it in a tiny thumbnail and give it enough jpeg artifacts.
Computer-generated artifacts are non-copyrightable. This is not the problem. (That said, as the law is written, no binary should be, but we already threw that baby out with the bathwater.) The problem is that the software is not free software, but encourages you to stop using its free predecessors and competition sneakily.
What do you define as free software? This software is open source, always free as in beer, and free as in freedom for research and evaluation purposes (and seems fairly permissive to researchers…)
From the license file: > 3.4 Patent Claims. If you bring or threaten to bring a patent claim against any Licensor (including any claim, cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) to enforce any patents that you allege are infringed by any Work, then your rights under this License from such Licensor (including the grant in Section 2.1) will terminate immediately. Is such a clause legal? I have basically zero knowledge…
I'm not a lawyer, and I won't comment on whether this is legal, but I'll note that it's quite similar to the patent clause in section 3 of the Apache Public License.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Computer-generated artifacts are non-copyrightable. This is not the problem. (That said, as the law is written, no binary should be, but we already threw that baby out with the bathwater.) The problem is that the software is not free software, but encourages you to stop using its free predecessors and competition sneakily.
I’m not sure I understand your claim, why is this encouraging anyone to stop using any competition? The license says plainly it’s not for commercial use, what’s so sneaky? What do you define as free software? This software is open source, always free as in beer, and free as in freedom for research and evaluation purposes (and seems fairly permissive to researchers…)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not sure I understand your claim, why is this encouraging anyone to stop using any competition? The license says plainly it’s not for commercial use, what’s so sneaky? What do you define as free software? This software is open source, always free as in beer, and free as in freedom for research and evaluation purposes (and seems fairly permissive to researchers…)
It by definition is not open source. The term has a definition. This breaks literally the first rule. https://opensource.org/osd
You didn’t answer the question - how is this sneaky, and how does it prevent using previous projects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It by definition is not open source. The term has a definition. This breaks literally the first rule. https://opensource.org/osd
I used, or maybe misused, the term open source. You used “free”. The license & project used neither, and made no claim to align with opensource.org’s philosophy or definition. Whatever you call it, the source code has been released for anyone to read and “evaluate”, that’s what I meant by ‘open’. You didn’t answer the question - how is this sneaky, and how does it prevent using previous projects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes they are legal, and I'm not sure I follow the argument that they shouldn't be
The argument against it, presumably, is that "If you try and make us pay for committing crime, you won't get access to our toys anymore" is very strange and seems illegal, since the ability to play with toys should not stop anyone from reporting violations of the law. But at the same time, it's definitely legal, for better or for worse, as is pretty much any stunt you pull with the joke that is US IP law.