https://github.com/facebookresearch/ImageBind/blob/main/LICE...
The source is available to view and use under a non-commercial license. It's extremely frustrating that major AI players are trying to shoehorn a redefinition of a term that's well-understood, just to further their reputation.
If you're passionately arguing and downvoting others that are claiming that ImageBind is in fact OSS then you're also actively demonstrating naivety. Definitions are not always universal and this is an easy to verify example. Instead of just posting another link to opensource.org read their about section[1] and consider why that leads to non-universality. And maybe also consider the words themselves: is the source available? Even if the only correct definition were from opensource.org, I'd expect everyone here to have some understanding why others might be confused since the words imply something different. There's some evidence to the other side's view, so it isn't obscene or idiotic. You don't have to accept the other view, just consider its existence.
Take a step back and consider that your view isn't the only possible one. Maybe we can have more constructive discussions if we do so. We don't need these holy wars, they don't accomplish anything.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Some argue we should acknowledge the important historical contribution made by the Linux project to the most widely used operating system in the world, but others argue that Linux is only a small component in a larger system, especially when they count lines of code, so it does not merit mention.
/s
(Above is a paraphrase of the now old argument why GNU did or did not merit mention in names of Linux-based operating systems. Now we have reached the point where Linux doesn't get a mention either).
>> Why do people misunderstand it that way? Because that is the natural meaning of the words “open source.” But the concept for which the open source advocates sought another name was a variant of that of free software.
>> Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
> It’s about honesty and humility
Good faith arguments recognize this obvious meaning. I would not buy it if anyone claimed that any other definition was an obvious conclusion from the term "Open Source Software." But as you're talking about the modern world, I find that this kind of terminology and reaction is quite common. I'm not sure why, but it we see it in a lot of political sayings and these just lead to arguments. You're right, we need to have a little honest and humility and recognize that if you need a paragraph to explain a 2-5 word slogan that it isn't an obvious interpretation.
(I've advocated for abandoning some terms in favor of others and the pushback is not on proposed alternative terminology but rather someone giving me a lecture on the original phrasing and how I don't understand it. That's unproductive, as we see similar events in other comments below).
Notwithstanding your point about the “obvious” meaning, I think it’s clear who is doing what with their word choices.
My criticism is not that Facebook chooses to release the software under any particular terms (they are well within their rights not to release it at all). But the ambiguity of the term remains, and my belief is that Facebook is well aware of the ambiguity and nevertheless chooses to use it in bad faith, and that is what frustrates me.
A less-ambiguous press release might instead say "source released under a non-commercial research license" or more succinctly "model code available for researchers," which sounds just fine.
> Many may not be aware, because of the naming, but OSS is actually defined as having no commerce restrictions <link to OSD and DoD definitions>. Facebook should clarify that this is "source available". I'm glad the source is available, but this is extremely frustrating as we've had this discussion several times and I believe that Facebook should know better by now.
I think such a phrasing could have led to better outcomes. For example, if I saw that -- instead of a bunch of comments about OSS -- I would have commented about how there is a lack of a training script and that this makes the work difficult to reproduce. While the training looks standard sometimes there are subtle differences that make this difficult. Though I'll admit that Facebook has a decent track record for reproduction within my own experience (MSR is the worst and Google is okay but uses proprietary datasets[0]).
> or more succinctly "model code available for researchers,"
Just to be clear, the checkpoint is also available. But I should also mention that this is only the state dict and does not have other information, as is common practice.
[0] Google needs to be not allowed to use this dataset in conference publications (at least in review phase). Not only does it make the work not reproducible but it breaks double blind reviewing, thus violating conference guidelines. Any paper which mentions JFT is automatically known as a Google work and biases the reviewer. I am ashamed that both reviewers and ACs have not flagged these works.
This is absolutely open source and will enable a lot of academic, governmental, and nonprofit uses. Just because it doesn't allow someone else to make money from it doesn't make it not open source.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
It's true that people are starting to make a distinction between "free software" and "open source," but generally the distinction is smaller than what you're saying.
The broader class of programs whose code is available for viewing and (potential) use or modification subject to restrictions, has been called "source available," and I think that's a great description of what it is and sets expectations well. You may or may not have a license to use it, but you can see the source code.
For example, the Business Source License is generally not considered open-source. It places restrictions on what you can do.
I kind of hate being pedantic about this, but I also dislike the deliberate misuse of the term, especially by a company that is obviously quite familiar with publishing large amounts of high-quality software that's genuinely open source.
Actually it does, per the OSD[1].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
> Source-available software is software released through a source code distribution model that includes arrangements where the source can be viewed, and in some cases modified, but without necessarily meeting the criteria to be called open-source.