Hacker News
points by lrvick 3 days ago | 0 comments
I hope they open source it before someone else decompiles it and does it for them. Just charge for binaries that most will pay for anyway. Then things like Linux support could be handled by the community.
[–] CiaranMcNulty 3 days ago
The core tool is CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

They’re charging for the bundled plugins for various editing suites

[–] LeoWattenberg 3 days ago
It is not, there's additional restrictions beyond the CC license.
[–] paaloeye 3 days ago
What are they then? It literally says "CC BY-NC-SA 4.0".
[–] LeoWattenberg 3 days ago

  This work is licensed under the Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0), the full text of which is included below, subject to the following additional terms and conditions. These additional terms supplement the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence and take precedence where they conflict.

"This tool" means the CorridorKey software in this repository and the CorridorKey model weights distributed for use with it.

By exercising any rights to the Licensed Material, You accept and agree to be bound by both these Additional Terms and the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 Public License.

1. PERMITTED USE

   a. You may use this tool for any lawful purpose, including for
      processing images as part of a commercial project, provided
      that such use complies with the restrictions set out below
      and the terms of the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 licence.

   b. The images and video You produce with this tool are Yours.
      The Licensor claims no rights in them, and You may use them
      commercially.

2. RESTRICTIONS

   In addition to the restrictions set out in the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
   licence, the following restrictions apply:

   a. NO REPACKAGING OR RESALE
      You may not repackage, redistribute, sublicense, or sell
      this tool, in whole or in part, as a standalone product or
      as part of a competing product, and You may not charge for
      access to this tool's code or model weights.

   b. NO PAID API OR INFERENCE SERVICES
      You may not use this tool to provide inference as a paid
      API service, whether directly or indirectly. This includes,
      but is not limited to, offering access to this tool behind
      a paywall, subscription model, or usage-based billing
      system.

   c. DERIVATIVES MUST BE FREELY ACCESSIBLE
      You may build on this tool, but any project, fork,
      derivative work, or modified version that You release and
      that incorporates this tool must be made available to the
      public free of charge. Voluntary donations and
      pay-what-you-want pricing are permitted, provided that
      paying nothing is always an available option.

   d. COMMERCIAL SOFTWARE INTEGRATION
      If you operate a commercial software package or inference
      service and wish to incorporate this tool into your
      software, you must obtain a separate written agreement
      from the Licensor. Please contact:

          contact@corridordigital.com

3. LARGE ORGANISATIONS

   a. If You are, or are using this tool on behalf of, a Legal
      Entity whose total gross revenue exceeded US $20,000,000
      (twenty million US dollars) in its most recently completed
      fiscal year, the permissions in Section 1 do not apply
      unless that Legal Entity has purchased a seat of the
      CorridorKey plugin from the Licensor for each individual
      who uses this tool.

   b. "Legal Entity" means the entity using this tool together
      with all other entities that control, are controlled by,
      or are under common control with it. Revenue is measured
      across the whole Legal Entity.

   c. Each seat of the CorridorKey plugin includes a licence
      for one individual to download and use this tool and its
      model weights. Seats are available at:

          https://corridorkey.com
Etc. Pp.
[–] Dylan16807 3 days ago
It's a lot better than just "source available". You can do most things as if it was open source. The difference between "you can sell it but you have to provide code to anyone you sell it to" and "you can't sell it but you can sell support and development services" is pretty minor.

The two main restrictions on top of that are "no paid API" which also seems pretty minor when the whole intent of this is local operation, and excluding large companies which is pretty low impact.

[–] LeoWattenberg 3 days ago
"You may not repackage, redistribute... this tool" sounds very much source-available to me.
[–] Dylan16807 2 days ago
It's badly written. But section 2.c is all about how you can redistribute.
[–] bikeshaving 3 days ago
None of the “decompiled” projects you’re alluding are legitimately open-source. Just because you turn the gaze of your plagiarism machine onto strictly licensed software doesn’t mean the result is a “clean room” implementation or even something that you yourself could copyright.
[–] lrvick 1 day ago
Decompile. Write tests. Delete de-compiled code. Write new code that passes tests with a fresh context agent. Huzzah. Clean room.

We can play this game forever. IP is dead.

[–] ShowalkKama 3 days ago
it's already open source, only the plugins are paid.
[–] LeoWattenberg 3 days ago
It is source-available, not open source.
[–] echelon 3 days ago
Open source is not always sustainable.

The OSI was created by the hyperscalers to pilfer free work from the commons.

Redis and elastic got owned by GCP and AWS because they went for OSI purity. The OSI is the hyperscalers.

Good fair source is more like shareware. The community can do whatever they want. Companies trying to profit must give back or pay to play.

Developers need to be compensated. It shouldn't be a labor of love that gets commercialized by hyperscalers whose own products are not open source.

The Corridor Crew model here is fantastic. As are fair source licenses. That's the way we should have done things all along.

[–] ben-schaaf 3 days ago
I agree it's fine and good that they want to sell this and keep it accessible for individuals, but modifying a CC-NC license and then calling this "open source" is not it.

If everyone followed this model instead of open source, then Corridor Key itself would have to cover dozens of software licenses for all it's dependencies.

[–] LeoWattenberg 3 days ago
Even by the FSF definition it's not free software as it violates freedom 0 (run it for any purpose) and 2 (redistribute copies). Or at least that is how I read their "no repackaging or resale" restriction.

Audacity, Libreoffice etc. are regularly sold by companies in box stores and there isn't much of a problem with that. What's being sold there is really just a means of access, just like some pay an internet subscription, some pay for CD-ROMs or, heaven forbid, floppy disks.

But let's say that we don't care about the 4 freedoms, let's say the purpose is for developers to get compensated. In that case, this still is a bad license, as CC-by-nc-sa with redundant and contradictory terms isn't particularly clear. the way I'd interpret the license text differs from the intention stated in the README, "You may not repackage, redistribute...this tool" doesn't leave room for any shareware/donationware to get created in the first place.

I would have much preferred for them to be less sloppy about their licensing. The only way I can understand the current license is to ignore it, and go with the vague intention of "we want big companies to pay, and be the only ones allowed to make money off this plugin, otherwise do whatever" instead...

[–] echelon 3 days ago
Audacity and Libreoffice aren't exactly the best pieces of software, and they're not supporting much of anyone.

I fundamentally understand what the Corridor Crew are doing here and know that it supports them. Yet they're not being overbearing or stifling the community.

[–] slopinthebag 1 day ago
if the dependencies that CorridorKey used weren't actual open source than they would not be able to release it under your concept of "fair use"...

we're talking like pytorch, numpy, and other large foundational libraries released not as shareware, but for free.

so either the foundational libraries are true oss, or the consuming libraries cannot be shareware. you cannot have it both ways.

everyone loves restrictive licences when it's their project of course