Although this is characterized as 1.0, it is governed by the Terms of Use for Early-Access, which are quite limiting, including: "You may use the Service solely for noncommercial purposes."
It really is rather peculiar to me. They frame it like this (emphasis mine):
"With the preliminary publication of this dataset, we further seek to establish a community-led process to grow, improve, and use institutional data in ways that strengthen the knowledge ecosystem and assert the importance of ongoing stewardship of training data from the originating knowledge institutions themselves. To this end, we are experimenting to find the best way to release this data in a manner that facilitates collaboration. We encourage input on this process to guide the full publication of this and future dataset dataset releases, beginning with the following decisions:
* At preliminary launch, we have published the metadata, including experimental metadata, in full
for anyone to access and use.
* At preliminary launch, we have published the dataset including OCR-extracted text under a
noncommercial license, and with a 'click-through' that requires users to accept this license,
additional terms of use, and to share basic contact information with us so that we can engage the community in its early use.
* At preliminary launch, we have chosen to postpone the release of the raw scan images, though we
will share them liberally with researchers and libraries who wish to review them. While we know
AI developers and researchers are eager for more raw materials, we believe this minor friction
can help build the relationships and norms necessary to grow a collaborative community."
It is the fruit of their labour (well, the digitalisation is), so it is up to them to license it as they see fit. But it feels odd to me that they seem to want to be in control to this degree. In open source and my own research field, the pattern we tend to follow is to release freely, observe, and then build relationships rather than holding a "license gun" towards the head of potential collaborators.
Lastly, I have only skimmed the pre-print, but I noted no commitment to a final license either. Not even a direction for it. Thus, as a natural language processing researcher I will stay clear from this dataset for the time being and hope the licensing situation improves.
“noncommericial” seems pernicious to me lately. I can see why people reach for it, but it really seems hard to define (there are many ways to profit off of something without simply selling it directly).
This has always been my problem with CC-NC, its just not clear to me what counts as "commercial" or not.
Can't sell the item itself? Okay, makes sense.
What about a downstream manufactured item? Such as a CC-NC STL, where you have since 3d printed it? You can't sell the STL, but what about the printed object? If not for profit, must you necessarily take a loss, or could you sell the items at-cost?
Or offering a CC-NC item for free, in the same place you are selling other products for profit? Where the CC-NC item may be acting as a "loss-leader" to get customers to purchase your commercial offerings?
Or giving everything away, the CC-NC item and all other items, but while representing a commercial entity who is doing such for marketing purposes with the end-goal of generating more revenue for the business?
I much prefer GPL/CC-SA licenses, they're much clearer where the line sits in regards to usage.
Don't most of these licenses also include "derived works". The trivial case, you get an STL, you print the object, it's clearly derived, you get some code, you edit parts of it for a new application, it's clearly derived.
Personally I feel it's also fairly trivial that an AI model is a derived work, but...there is so much money, people risk it (eg early Spotify and sourcing music) and hope it becomes a non-issue.
HOWEVER, as China and co are going to wholesale ignore any IP/copyright to train AI models, the choice we have...may not be much of a choice at all.
IANAL, but I think it goes even one step beyond that, which is that the item and derived works can't even be used to support a commercial enterprise, even if the (derived) work isn't being sold or seen by the outside public.
I'm sure Harvard doesn't consider its use as commercial, even though some people there get big salaries. Claudine Gay, for instance, makes more than $1m/year even after losing the job of President in the scandal. There are only a few "commercial" businesses that pay that well.
The video on Steam shows both first- and third-person perspectives. Speaking of LLMs, Gemini says: "Hypercharge: Unboxed is both a first-person and third-person shooter. You can switch between perspectives based on your preference."
> The thesis is predicated on the idea that people claim this is the result of some study. I’ve never once heard it presented that way. It's a rule of thumb.
Code Complete cites eight sources to support the claim that the average cost to fix a defect introduced during requirements is 10-100x if it's not detected until after release. My qualm with Hillel's original assertion is that "They all use this chart from the 'IBM Systems Sciences Institute'" (emphasis added). I haven't personally vetted Steve McConnell's citations, but I am skeptical that they all share this common origin.
Laurent Bossavit’s The Leorechauns of Software Engineering looks into this claim (and several others) and finds that, yes, many of these studies do share a common origin, and often misquote/misrepresent it.
It's a land grab that, if GSAP becomes a standard, makes it that much harder to compete with Webflow.
For example GSAP will now never make its way into Figma or Framer which is a staple of the design workflows of many teams. This move by Webflow makes GSAP a line of demarkation between Figma-based workflows, Framer-based workflows, and Webflow-based workflows.
Any momentum the library might have had is now skewered by these limitations which will surely create demand for more different animation libraries to exist within other walled gardens.
The same happened to Vercel & Next.js which now seems to be powering the return of Vite & CSR.
Now that said, I'd never heard of this library until this announcement, and I don't know much about its role in the javascript ecosystem, but I can't say that the trend towards M&A kingdoms in the open source community delights me.
FWIW, sub-5kb banners were probably the only Flash projects that didn't include GSAP before we collectively jumped ships to JavaScript and CSS for animation on the web. It was everywhere.
Personally, I don't know what you mean about Rust being too massive. One thing I am wary of is using a truly massive language like C++ on a multi-programmer project without consensus on which features to use and how to use them. Maybe you have in mind something like that?
If you want the simplicity of C with more safety, maybe tooling like Frama-C, a MISRA C conformance checker, or just aggressive use of static and dynamic analysis tools like ASAN and UBSAN. You can also disable certain optimizations (e.g., strict aliasing) to steer away from some of the major pitfalls of UB.
I don't have specific complaints about the current version, but I'm going to give it a try. If nothing else, it's probably ARM native.