Submitted by hardmaru t3_z36n5j in MachineLearning
dualmindblade t1_ixngilt wrote
Reply to comment by sam__izdat in [P] Stable Diffusion 2.0 Announcement by hardmaru
Automatic is open source tho
sam__izdat t1_ixngzu2 wrote
It is not. It is closed source and all rights reserved, for each of its many willing (and some unwilling) contributors. It's also packed with MIT licensed code stripped of its license agreements, has a record of RCE exploits, and is managed by some kid from 4chan who used to make racist video game mods. Also, this is a machine learning subreddit, and not a tech support subreddit for end users who need a .bat file to set up a gradio GUI.
dualmindblade t1_ixnmhpm wrote
The code is and always has been free to clone from GitHub, project has been forked numerous times and has received contributions from tons of random devs, it's open source. What you mean is licensing hasn't been ironed out, maybe that's impossible, but open source is as open source does. Whether the project owner is a bad person is beside the point.
sam__izdat t1_ixnmvxi wrote
> What you mean is licensing hasn't been ironed out
No, what I mean is it is closed source, as in the exact opposite of open source, and packed with stolen, copyright-infringing code for which the owner has decided the license terms he agreed to do not need to be followed. The fact that the source is available, at the proprietor's discretion, while being plainly illegal to to use, copy, modify and distribute, makes no difference whatsoever. 37GB of Microsoft source code are also available, strictly speaking. That doesn't mean it's open source.
Here is what these words you are using actually mean:
"Open-source software (OSS) is computer software that is released under a LICENSE in which the copyright holder grants users the rights to use, study, change, and distribute the software and its source code to anyone and for any purpose.[1][2] Open-source software may be developed in a collaborative public manner. Open-source software is a prominent example of open collaboration, meaning any capable user is able to participate online in development, making the number of possible contributors indefinite. The ability to examine the code facilitates public trust in the software."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
"Proprietary software, also known as non-free software or closed-source software, is computer software for which the software's publisher or another person reserves some licensing rights to use, modify, share modifications, or share the software, restricting user freedom with the software they lease. It is the opposite of open-source or free software."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software
"No License
When you make a creative work (which includes code), the work is under exclusive copyright by default. Unless you include a license that specifies otherwise, nobody else can copy, distribute, or modify your work without being at risk of take-downs, shake-downs, or litigation. Once the work has other contributors (each a copyright holder), “nobody” starts including you."
dualmindblade t1_ixns4hk wrote
The comment posted would probably carry some legal weight and might count as an informal license, but that's beside the point, the common sense (and dictionary) definition of open source doesn't have anything to do with licensing, and it has nothing to do with the context of the conversation. Calling anything without a formal license "closed source" is intellectually dishonest since most anyone would assume that means the source isn't public and the creator wouldn't want you to modify and republish it.
sam__izdat t1_ixnshyo wrote
The common sense definition for people who write code is the programmer definition that we've been using for as long as the term had existed. When you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't know what the terms used in software development actually mean, I can see how your definition might be entirely different. That's called ignorance, and you fix that with education.
> Calling anything without a formal license "closed source" is intellectually dishonest
No, it is not, because that is literally what closed source means. The source code is closed. You are not allowed to modify it. You are not allowed to copy it. It is not yours to use, copy or tinker with. It belongs exclusively to someone else and doing anything to it without explicit written permission opens you and probably your employer to litigation.
Brudaks t1_ixo9z32 wrote
Legally anything without a formal license is "all rights reserved". If you don't have explicit permission, the law requires you to assume that the creator wouldn't want you to modify and republish it. If the author never says anything, you're prohibited to use it until 70 years after they die.
alphabet_order_bot t1_ixngjns wrote
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,187,562,160 comments, and only 231,720 of them were in alphabetical order.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments