Not to mention vaporwave, which typically boils down to “take song, reduce bass, slow down”.

Or vaporwave's inverse, nightcore, which typically boils down to ”take song, increase bass, speed up”.

Indeed, like toiling in factories and mines and farms.

Finding those thousands of matching human-recorded tracks and curating them into playlists seems like a benign use of music-aware ML models.

> We are not fine with mass-producing framed paintings that are "art".

Sure “we” are; we just call them “prints” or “posters” instead of ”paintings”.

I mean, maybe in the sense that any other corporate activity is technically “human activity” because humans happened to be the ones doing the formula-dictated tasks, but it's ultimately the formula at the helm, not the human.

Removing the Oxford comma not only fails to resolve the ambiguity, but introduces yet more ambiguity by implying Ayn Rand to be God.

It seems you're speaking with a Lisp :P

> No licensee or downstream recipient may use the Software (including any modified or derivative versions) to directly compete with the original Licensor by offering it to third parties as a hosted, managed, or Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) product or cloud service where the primary value of the service is the functionality of the Software itself.

No thanks. These “almost-but-not-quite-FOSS” licenses are a blight.

Some will argue that it is Open Source. But Open Source came from commercial interests against Free Software.

It's clearly not free software, since the user freedom is restricted.

It's not libre, since that also refers to freedoms.

It's not really Open Source.

Source-Available has been used to describe this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

I don't see the issue - the creator is reserving the right to create their own paid hosted version?

That's absolutely fine for them, but they shouldn't call it "Open-source" and "Fully open source" (like they do on the linked page).

This software is source-available. Open Source licenses don't discriminate on the basis use of the software.

Using the term Open Source for license like this is dishonest. It seeks to profit from the goodwill from actual Open Source software.

I can link to community-edited articles, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Definition

We make the consensus reality. I'm part of the faction that wants this particular reality, so I advocate for it.

OSD !== Open Source. All OSD is Open Source, not all Open Source is OSD. You are free to disagree, but the OSI has chosen (more accurately forced to choose) very explicitly to only define and trademark OSD. There's really not much more to the conversation then that.

Maybe you're right, but FSL/BSL is arguably "more open source" than GPL. We all know GPL is a poison pill that kills commercial use, while FSL/BSL just blocks competitors from stealing your app.

That's not even remotely true. GPL does not prevent any commercial use, when others (like BSL or the O'Sassy license here) explicitly prevent commercial use...

Are you kidding me? If you link against a GPL library in a proprietary commercial app, the GPL's copyleft infects that code and you'd have to release it under GPL.

Explain to me how that doesn't prevent commercial use? Are you going to say "well technically it doesn't prevent it"? No one cares. Commercial projects avoid GPL like the plague.

Fair point, I've actually just switched to MIT as of today. This is a personal project I've been building for myself and I want to share it with anyone who finds it useful.

Nice, thanks!

The confusing thing for me related to that was Try Free which leads me to look for pricing. But with only Try free I get suspicious of even private or small team.

If it’s free for use. Try is a confusing term.

Off topic, I’d really wish any service or product with tiers would have pricing in a discoverable way.

> Tesla treats the firmware as licensed software

This would be okay if there's a way to reject the license and install my own firmware.

You'd be required to jump through the hoops to get your custom firmware approved by the necessary regulatory bodies, just as Tesla did for theirs.

It's not really feasible for a private owner, so I can see why it's not offered as an option.

If you're going to sell the car with the modified firmware, fine.

But at least in my jurisdiction, I can mechanically modify the car in any way I please, as long as it still has seat belts, brake lights, and bumpers of a certain height. It doesn't even still require a steering wheel; that's not specified in the law as far as I've been able to find. (Now, if I removed the muffler and made it louder than proscribed by law, I could be cited for a noise violation, but only at such a time as I womped on the gas and actually made the noise. The car itself being _capable_ of the noise is not, inherently, illegal.)

This blew my coworkers' mind once as I unplugged the passenger-side airbag while mounting a bunch of new stuff there. Apparently in some places, it requires paperwork and certifications just to unplug a connector? Weird.

Surely not if I certified that the car was never going to be used on the road?

If I can buy purple headlights at AutoZone, then I should be able to swap out my car's firmware.

On screens that are taller than they're wide, a lot of the longer words get truncated, such that I have zero idea what they are until I've found a match for them (usually after blowing many moves on finding that match).

Also, how are “feuding” and “buddies” not opposites?