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

OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 207 posts

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#81

Post by bbor »

c0pium wrote: post #68
bbor wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well… “use” isn’t exactly free, this the complaint. On a scale of free to not free, “cannot use this for my work” is a pretty big jump to the latter end IMO

Careful, you’re saying the quiet part out loud; freedom is about profiting off the uncompensated work of others.

Well ultimately we all need to eat. If someone wants to be compensated in today’s society, they either need to join a gift-based sub-society (see: OSS foundations, NGOs in general) or sell something. Trust me, I totally agree that freedom of information should be a completely separate concern from resource allocation

EDIT: I guess there’s a third option, “work another job and use OSS on your off hours”. Which feels… idk, disrespectful of the whole enterprise. OSS software development is important enough to deserve a wage IMO, to say the least

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#83

Post by cjbprime »

DandyDev wrote: post #7
colesantiago wrote: post #6

> This repository is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which prohibits commercial usage. MyShell reserves the ability to detect whether an audio is generated by OpenVoice, no matter whether the watermark is added or not. So it is not 'open' then and you cannot make money out of this?

It is open, just not by your definition. You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content. Sounds pretty open to me!

And not by opensource.org's definition, which prohibits use restrictions. It's not reasonable to act like OP is being idiosyncratic when this fails to meet the protected definition of "open source".

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#84

Post by dotancohen »

peddling-brink wrote: post #2

GitHub: https://github.com/myshell-ai/OpenVoice Checkpoint: hxxps://myshell-public-repo-hosting.s3.amazonaws.com/checkpoints_1226.zip (Checkpoint link defanged because I’m allergic to direct links to zip files hosted on Amazon. Nor have I reviewed what the file contains.)

What does allergic mean in this context?

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#85

Post by ponector »

huqedato wrote: post #10

Welcome to the new era of fakes and scams beyond our wildest imagination !

Maybe this will teach people to rise up awareness and take personal security serious. Like not to trust anyone who is calling, especially from legacy line. Phone number and voice could be easily cloned.

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#86

Post by gpm »

cjbprime wrote: post #83
DandyDev wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is open, just not by your definition. You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content. Sounds pretty open to me!

And not by opensource.org's definition, which prohibits use restrictions. It's not reasonable to act like OP is being idiosyncratic when this fails to meet the protected definition of "open source".

The term "open source" is not protected, the OSI (opensource.org) attempted and failed to acquire a trademark on that term.

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#88

Post by abetusk »

DandyDev wrote: post #7
colesantiago wrote: post #6

> This repository is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which prohibits commercial usage. MyShell reserves the ability to detect whether an audio is generated by OpenVoice, no matter whether the watermark is added or not. So it is not 'open' then and you cannot make money out of this?

It is open, just not by your definition. You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content. Sounds pretty open to me!

By the commonly held definition of open, in the context of "open source", it is not open.

> You can view, use and modify the code to your hearts content.

The non-commercial clause of their license specifically prohibits commercial use, so we cannot use this source, and presumably the data that the source uses, to our hearts content.

The OSI has a definition of open source that clearly states commercial use is required [0].

Wikipedias entry on Open Source Licensing also stipulates that commercial re-use is required [1].

There is a term called "source available" which is more in line with your intent.

[0] https://opensource.org/osd/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_license

Re: OpenVoice: Versatile Instant Voice Cloning

#90

Post by jokethrowaway »

ben_w wrote: post #76
toss1 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fidelity Investments just did something even worse ~a week ago - It asked me to reply to a few questions, then announced that I'd just been enrolled in it's voice identification program (or whatever they call it). Now I've got Just Another Item on my ToDo list, to get that undone. Gawd, does every company promote it's stupidest people to management?

I don't know if GDPR (or any of its cousins) applies to you, but this kind of thing sounds exactly like the sort of thing it's supposed to outlaw.

How? Your bank stores personal data covered by gdpr but enabling crappy secure systems is not the domain of gdpr.

Most likely this is caused by SCA another European directive that ruined our lives with extra security hoops (for payment providers) for little extra security - or even worse in case of voice password or security questions

Post reply on HN