OpenVoice is not open source software or open source data

[abetusk]

From your README, you state:

This is an open-source implementation that approximates the performance of the internal voice clone technology of myshell.ai.

The "non-commercial" clause makes this project not open source, in the common usage of the term "open source".

"Open Source" has a generally accepted meaning of being able to use the digital artifacts for commercial purposes. The OSI and Wikipedia's entry on open-source licensing both articulate that commercial re-use is a (generally accepted) requirement of an "open source" license.

If the intent of the project is to create an open source software voice cloning software, could you change the licensing terms, both in the README.md, the headers of the source files and data licensing terms to reflect this intent? For example dropping the non-commercial clause would make this project open source.

If the intent is to keep the non-commercial clause of the license, indications of the project being "open source" should be removed as it isn't open source and can cause confusion for people wishing to use your code and data. A commonly accepted term is "source available" rather than "open source" to indicate that you've made the source available to view but not use commercially.

[Zengyi-Qin]

Very much appreciated for your attention to OpenVoice. We have modified our claim based on your suggestion. We use the term "source available" instead of "open source".

[abetusk]

Note also that the paper linked to by the research.mysell.ai/open-voice claims that OpenVoice is open source.

[egoist-sx]

We will change the terms first and for now. And we have plan to change license to more friendly ones in the near future. @abetusk . Thanks for your attention and recommendation. :D

[platform-kit]

@egoist-sx that's great news. Will that license allow commercial usage? And can you provide a rough estimate of when that license change may occur?

[jmanhype]

good thing i read this. spent most of today learning how to use. gunna pass for now

[fakerybakery]

+1 @platform-kit

[fakerybakery]

Hi, currently, do you place any restrictions on the outputs of the audio, or are the outputs the property of the user? Thank you!

[Harinderpreet]

Let me know when you release commercial license or API

[Andrewcpu]

yup license is extremely harsh.

[binarydepth]

Doesn't the original license forbid closing it? This could be a breach

[fakerybakery]

Doesn't the original license forbid closing it? This could be a breach

@binarydepth Original license?

[binarydepth]

Doesn't the original license forbid closing it? This could be a breach

@binarydepth Original license?

I mean.

1. Am I under the wrong impression that this is forked GPL licensed software?

2. The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) is not specifically a software license. It's a general public copyright license that can be applied to a wide range of creative works, including:

   Textual works: books, articles, blog posts, poems, etc. Visual works: photographs, illustrations, paintings, videos, etc. Audio works: music, podcasts, sound recordings, etc. Educational materials: courses, lesson plans, presentations, etc. Research data: datasets, databases, findings, etc.

While it can be used for software, it's not designed with the specific needs of software licensing in mind. Here are some key reasons why:

No explicit warranty disclaimer: Software licenses typically include a warranty disclaimer to protect the licensor from liability. CC BY-NC 4.0 doesn't have this.
No patent protection: CC BY-NC 4.0 doesn't address patent rights, which are often crucial in software licensing.
No clear terms for distributing binary files: Software licenses often specify how binary files can be distributed, but CC BY-NC 4.0 doesn't.

For software, it's generally recommended to use licenses specifically designed for software, such as:

MIT License: A permissive license that allows for wide use and modification.
GNU General Public License (GPL): A copyleft license that ensures software remains free and open-source.
Apache License 2.0: A permissive license that's popular for commercial and open-source software.

If you're considering using CC BY-NC 4.0 for software, consult with a legal expert to ensure it meets your specific needs and complies with applicable laws.

Generated by Google Bard

3. It is Python code and is available to review, meaning that once I read it and learn how it works I can write whatever code I want that does that same with my spin.

[fakerybakery]

Hi, which GPL software was this forked from?

[binarydepth]

Hi, which GPL software was this forked from?

It is a fair assumption that the name "OpenVoice" means OSS. But it is not, and you are using a non-software license but yeah, you can be an oddball and call things whatever you want

[fakerybakery]

Hi, I see from the README that you're planning to change the license to a commercially-friendly license in the near future. Please consider Apache, MIT, or ISC, which will allow OpenVoice to be open-sourced! Thank you!

[fakerybakery]

Hey @Zengyi-Qin is there any update on this?