Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

dualmindblade t1_ixns4hk wrote

Reply to comment by sam__izdat in [P] Stable Diffusion 2.0 Announcement by hardmaru

The comment posted would probably carry some legal weight and might count as an informal license, but that's beside the point, the common sense (and dictionary) definition of open source doesn't have anything to do with licensing, and it has nothing to do with the context of the conversation. Calling anything without a formal license "closed source" is intellectually dishonest since most anyone would assume that means the source isn't public and the creator wouldn't want you to modify and republish it.

−1

sam__izdat t1_ixnshyo wrote

The common sense definition for people who write code is the programmer definition that we've been using for as long as the term had existed. When you have no idea what you're talking about, and don't know what the terms used in software development actually mean, I can see how your definition might be entirely different. That's called ignorance, and you fix that with education.

> Calling anything without a formal license "closed source" is intellectually dishonest

No, it is not, because that is literally what closed source means. The source code is closed. You are not allowed to modify it. You are not allowed to copy it. It is not yours to use, copy or tinker with. It belongs exclusively to someone else and doing anything to it without explicit written permission opens you and probably your employer to litigation.

6

Brudaks t1_ixo9z32 wrote

Legally anything without a formal license is "all rights reserved". If you don't have explicit permission, the law requires you to assume that the creator wouldn't want you to modify and republish it. If the author never says anything, you're prohibited to use it until 70 years after they die.

4