> 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?
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.
In their README in the GitHub repository as well as the paper. I opened an issue [0] and it looks like they've updated their README, at least, to reflect that it's not open source.
To be specific, while it is not a bad license, it does not quality for the Free Cultural Works mark as defined by the Creative Commons and Freedom Defined: https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/freeworks/
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".
I admit not to have read the whole paper, but in the intro nowhere do they mention “open source”, so it seems unfair to measure them by that definition
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
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
To your last point, people pay what the market will bear. In this case, it's free, so don't be surprised that if you give something away for free that people, well, take it for free. Importance has nothing to do with it.
This is the most insightful take. Licenses like this prevent certain businesses in certain countries, but it is quite harmful as it adds a powerful tool for propaganda/scammers/etc who don’t care about the laws.
Additionally, it only really hurts small businesses & startups as the big companies all have teams that can make their own version or pay for 3rd party apis for easily. So yeah, us startup folks won’t like this license much as it basically is aimed at us the most.
Either way, congrats with the tech. It does look very impressive!
So it is not 'open' then and you cannot make money out of this?