"open-source license for non-commercial use" is contradictory
I would implore you to not use the term "open source" when describing your license, as you restrict commercial use which is strongly against the well-established definition of "open source."
I would instead suggest you use "source available" which will signal that people copying your source or weights should expect they are in fact NOT allowed to do what they please with it, as they would with any actual open source license.
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has been an in industry watchdog on this for decades, and has a long list of approved licenses. None of them include "non commercial" terms as that is a significant poison pill for anyone else to work on and expand the work.
For more information:
https://opensource.org/licenses/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software
Agreed. It's not open source. It's kind of silly really because this type of app is typically an intermediary and useful in a pipeline, not as an end product. What's the point of banning commercial use? It generates a mask.
@panopstor @swiftest - thanks for you feedback, we do not wish to cause confusion. How would you describe it? The model is open for research purposes, so it is fully accessible to independent researchers and students. Do you think the word "open" without the source would be OK?
@swiftest - We are not banning commercial use, on the other hand, we build a startup program to help companies using our products. Contact us if you need any help
mokady if you wont release training code it doesnt really matter much to be honest cause in practice - nobody checks what model was used to remove background , that would be insane and the tech is so new ... so the license thing is just to avoid potential lawsuits in the future ... imo it can stay opensource with an eyewink, but real open is when you let people train it so no code is withheld.
And guys dont be so petty questioning its opensourceness i know several repos that are open but not for commercial use , theres no training code anyway so you wont do much with it other than use it.
@mokady the correct term is as @panopstor stated: source available.
Open source has a very specific legal meaning that opensource.org could enforce if they wanted to.
Contacting their legal team as we speak.
I updated the model card
@3blackbar , @panopstor , @swiftest , @distantquant - Thank you all for your notes.
As @mokady stated, we have updated the model card so there will be no confusions.
Thank you. I don't mean to be a nag or a thorn in your side, but I worry with many misusing "open source" the industry will become embroiled in unnecessary legal battles, or people will be upset when there is miscommunication and projects are misused by those who quickly glance over "open source" and do not read the full license.
Regardless, thank you for the project. Your results are excellent!