I wonder how they arrived at Creative Commons' CC-BY-NC as the license. These licenses are not meant for code but for artwork, Creative Commons actually discourage the use of their licenses for code [1].
I recently noticed the same with the FastPhotoStyle code [2] by nvidia, so I'm wondering if there is something that draws their legal departments to this license?
If the dataset it was trained on is CC-BY-NC, I'm pretty sure the model also has to be CC-BY-NC. However I think this is not respected, or even considered by most people.
I'd go with limiting how competitors can use it as the main deciding factor.
Hmmm... I guess it's been selected that way because it'd covevr the model files and the datasets. It's not about the code as much as the datasets/models.
yeah, that's what I came up with myself. But I thought a main point, if not the whole point of publishing code for these companies was to appeal to developer-types who are fond of real open source/science. And those should be able to tell the difference...
It's a bit like allowing your scientists to publish their research, but only in prohibitively expensive and thus exceedingly niche journals.
[1]: https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
[2]: https://github.com/NVIDIA/FastPhotoStyle