"You may not repackage, redistribute... this tool" sounds very much source-available to me.
126 karma · joined June 13, 2023
Audacity, Libreoffice etc. are regularly sold by companies in box stores and there isn't much of a problem with that. What's being sold there is really just a means of access, just like some pay an internet subscription, some pay for CD-ROMs or, heaven forbid, floppy disks.
But let's say that we don't care about the 4 freedoms, let's say the purpose is for developers to get compensated. In that case, this still is a bad license, as CC-by-nc-sa with redundant and contradictory terms isn't particularly clear. the way I'd interpret the license text differs from the intention stated in the README, "You may not repackage, redistribute...this tool" doesn't leave room for any shareware/donationware to get created in the first place.
I would have much preferred for them to be less sloppy about their licensing. The only way I can understand the current license is to ignore it, and go with the vague intention of "we want big companies to pay, and be the only ones allowed to make money off this plugin, otherwise do whatever" instead...
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons"This tool" means the CorridorKey software in this repository and the CorridorKey model weights distributed for use with it.
By exercising any rights to the Licensed Material, You accept and agree to be bound by both these Additional Terms and the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Public License.
1. PERMITTED USE
a. You may use this tool for any lawful purpose, including for
processing images as part of a commercial project, provided
that such use complies with the restrictions set out below
and the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence.
b. The images and video You produce with this tool are Yours.
The Licensor claims no rights in them, and You may use them
commercially.
In addition to the restrictions set out in the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
licence, the following restrictions apply:
a. NO REPACKAGING OR RESALE
You may not repackage, redistribute, sublicense, or sell
this tool, in whole or in part, as a standalone product or
as part of a competing product, and You may not charge for
access to this tool's code or model weights.
b. NO PAID API OR INFERENCE SERVICES
You may not use this tool to provide inference as a paid
API service, whether directly or indirectly. This includes,
but is not limited to, offering access to this tool behind
a paywall, subscription model, or usage-based billing
system.
c. DERIVATIVES MUST BE FREELY ACCESSIBLE
You may build on this tool, but any project, fork,
derivative work, or modified version that You release and
that incorporates this tool must be made available to the
public free of charge. Voluntary donations and
pay-what-you-want pricing are permitted, provided that
paying nothing is always an available option.
d. COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE INTEGRATION
If you operate a commercial software package or inference
service and wish to incorporate this tool into your
software, you must obtain a separate written agreement
from the Licensor. Please contact:
contact@corridordigital.com
a. If You are, or are using this tool on behalf of, a Legal
Entity whose total gross revenue exceeded US $20,000,000
(twenty million US dollars) in its most recently completed
fiscal year, the permissions in Section 1 do not apply
unless that Legal Entity has purchased a seat of the
CorridorKey plugin from the Licensor for each individual
who uses this tool.
b. "Legal Entity" means the entity using this tool together
with all other entities that control, are controlled by,
or are under common control with it. Revenue is measured
across the whole Legal Entity.
c. Each seat of the CorridorKey plugin includes a licence
for one individual to download and use this tool and its
model weights. Seats are available at:
https://corridorkey.com
5 years ago we would've called it a Machine Learning algorithm. 5 years before that, a Big Data algorithm.
Incidentally, I also wonder if the many checklists pilots need to go through before the plane does anything are strictly necessary. It seems like automating these steps and removing associated buttons may be beneficial to reduce cognitive load and prevent operator error (such as happened with the Air India crash last year).
Intentional noncompliance with copyright law can get you quite a distance, but there's a lot of money involved, so if you ever catch the wrong kind of attention, usually by being too successful, you tend to get smacked.
Is this just cynicism or based on anything? From reading the methods section it doesn't appear this is what happened
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Goodbye-Microsoft-Schleswig-Hol...
In Audacity, our goal is to keep it extremely approachable for beginners, so for us the idea of having one view of a clip in context of the project and a different view in which you only see the clip is something we'd rather not do. A wave editor window or panel separate from the main project timeline is however the industry standard, and as such it might be exactly the sort of feature which would be very at home in Ardour.
As far as user-facing changes go, it's some new themes, a different compressor, keeping features visible which upstream has hidden by default, MKA support without FFmpeg, as well as support for some more niche systems (Haiku, BSD). All of this is in some stages of ongoing; Tenacity 1.4 alpha 1 got released a few weeks ago, and while that does include the rebase, it hasn't ported back all of the changes which were made before the rebase.
Noteworthy: Most of the development is being contributed by one person, Avery King.
As of right now, I'd recommend Audacity 3.7.x over Tenacity, as Audacity 3.x has been in maintenance mode pretty much since 3.6, while Tenacity is currently finding its footing again. Disabling update checking is easy enough anyway.
In the future though, it appears that Tenacity is going to keep alive legacy Audacity for legacy systems while Audacity 4 is on the way of adding more DAW features and dropping support for older systems. Definitely a worthwhile role to inherit.
(disclaimer: I was a designer for Audacity)
But we do know that certain symptoms tend to show up in clusters, and that patients in certain clusters tend to respond to certain drugs with an above-placebo level of effectiveness.
The same is true for a runny nose: It can be caused by any number of viruses (there is no such a thing as "the" influenza virus or "the" common cold virus), or allergies, or irritants like pepper spray, or a problem with the body's ability to regulate itself, or something else entirely – but going through the effort to test for every virus, allergen, irritant, and whatnot is wasteful, if all the patient needs at that moment is some nasal spray to breathe properly again. Incidentally, a runny nose is (or perhaps: was) not a common symptom of Covid, so unless other symptoms more indicative of it show, there may not a good reason to test for it, or prescribe medication specific to it.
If more symptoms accumulate over time, or the symptoms don't go away, you then probably can go back to your doctor, will get a different diagnosis and possibly a different prescription. The same is (or at least: should be) true for mental issues, where you might switch treatment over and over until something is found which actually helps your symptoms. Is this a flawed process? Frustrating? Absolutely. But is it "worthless"? I don't think so.
Now the ship has beached itself and the crew is frantically trying something - anything - to plug the leaks, prevent her from capsizing and trying to get her back afloat. I don't know if they'll manage, or if ladybird is the alternative to the new IE that is Chrome
Additionally, YouTube can be thought of as the second most used search engine. Which in return means that the built-in search is now up against Google, Bing and whatever else - and most other engines can be restricted to just search YouTube using the site: operator.