> Why on earth would the license use Github’s very niche definition?
Maybe because it's ON GITHUB??
@sunstoned @Ephera That's nonsense. You could write the scripts, collect the data, publish all, but without the months of GPU training you wouldn't have the trained model, so it would all be worthless. The code used to train all the proprietary models is already open-source, it's things like PyTorch, Tensorflow etc. For a model to be open-source means you can download the weights and you are allowed to use it as you please, including modifying it and publishing again. It's not about the dataset.
And we also explored the AI option, it always turned out unrealistic. Either you would have to scrape the content and send it to the AI to parse the info, but then you'd be paying for every scrape, or run a powerful rig nonstop, but the results would still be hit and miss. Or you might let the AI generate the code for the scraping module, still not ideal, they were constantly hallucinating things that weren't there.
I've been webscraping in my job for 6 years. Yes, it's a constant headache, they keep updating their sites and improving their antibot protections. But it can be done and some companies are doing it (on a biiiiig scale). It's just not very realistic that an open-source project would be able to invest that much effort into all the updates. Well some do, youtube-dl is basically webscraping and they are pretty up-to-date. It's just very rare.
@toastal I don't need to compare each license to each other and get lost in wicked little words, arguing with anonymous accounts on the internet. I can instead see which change was a move towards, or away from, a world ransacked by corporations. That is clearly binary. Would you argue that Redis made the world less ransacked by their license change?
If you find a piece of code in a forum without any license text, and you use it in your software, you could be in a lot of trouble, and not just because the code might be bad. Code without a license is NOT open source, nor public domain, nor free to use, https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/1721. It needs to have a license that explicitly allows use, modification, redistribution, only then it is open source. You may have seen some "openwashing", someone trying to redefine the term to make them look good
@onlinepersona Please note, by adding the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 to your comments, you are executing your copyright. Do *you* think copyright is good for you?
chebra
joined 6 years ago
@sweng It's much more likely that the term follows the github's definition, because it's on github, rather than the wikipedia's definition, because why would it? You keep hanging on one word in a wikipedia article, let me fix that article and maybe we can stop this nonsense discussion.