OpenVoice is not open source software or open source data about openvoice

[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".

[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

[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!

[jmanhype]

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

[Andrewcpu]

yup license is extremely harsh.

[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?

[binarydepth]

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

[abetusk]

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

[fakerybakery]

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

[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

[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