LeoWattenberg

"You may not repackage, redistribute... this tool" sounds very much source-available to me.

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...

  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:

          [email protected]

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.

It is not, there's additional restrictions beyond the CC license.

It is source-available, not open source.

Just a little heads-up: the tech is the fun part. Moderation is eternal, relentless and categorically unfun, especially if your site is disconnected communities

Dailymotion, Google Video, sevenload, german TV stations RTL and Pro7 even launched Clipfish and MyVideo respectively to compete with youtube. Youtube happens to be the only one that survived on Googles ad model, the others very quickly realized that paid premium content is much easier to handle (copyright, CSAM) and monetize.

Whatever the reason may be, the fact that pilots regularly engage in rather complicated and obstruse workarounds shows that cockpit design shouldn't be taken as the holy grail of UX.

Incidentally, I also wonder if the many checklists pilots need to go through before the plane does anything are strictly necessary. It seems like automating these steps and removing associated buttons may be beneficial to reduce cognitive load and prevent operator error (such as happened with the Air India crash last year).

While aviation is the origin of UX design, I'm uncertain whether modern cockpit design is born out of UX or out of a resistance to change. For example, for fuel-efficient takeoffs, you need to go in and override the ambient temperature and air pressure sensors and calculate what an efficient fuel mix would be yourself.

Most licenses, EULAs, contracts and so on don't have much precedent in court. There's no reason to believe that GPL would fold once subjected to sufficiently crafty lawyers.

Copy pasting code is allowed under LGPL, but doing so while removing license headers and attribution of code snippets would not be.