It’s an AI program specifically to use AI models to recognise birds. If you’re against AI you should probably learn to recognise them manually.

It can run on device on your phone https://birdnet.cornell.edu/

Ah yes, if you wanted a say you should’ve paid €50 to join something nobody ever told you about. How very open and community spirited.

It shouldn’t be.

Naming an AI tool after a god of mischief seems like tempting the fates. 😆

This isn’t the first project like this, motionEye OS has been around for years.

I suspect onlyoffice will win this one

I’m sceptical tbh, their interpretation of the AGPL seems questionable. The specific wording in the AGPL they’re relying on for their logo preservation term is:

Requiring preservation of specified reasonable legal notices or author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it

IMO a logo isn’t attribution, and even if it was there’s no way it could be considered reasonable to require it if they don’t allow you to use it.

There’s some irony in that sponsor block has to block four segments of the video.

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

Removed by mod

What happened? Why did github block them?

Helium was interesting, but they locked it down so you can only use their proprietary hardware for access points, it seems kinda scammy.

IPFS is used by several archive projects like Anna’s archive and libgen.

Meshtastic is a distributed local mesh network for text messaging.

Neat, shame it doesn’t work if you feed it a category link though.

There are licences like this already

• https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:THL-1.1
• https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:ANTI-1.4
• https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:HESSLA

None of which have ever caught on, and none of which are open source.

You would also be making it potentially illegal to use in many countries.

Honestly, between this and not all the modules being open source I would personally avoid it, seen too many projects openbait and then go “open core”.

I think this is designed for that https://github.com/vroland/epdiy

Their guide still implies that you need to pay a fee to unlock an API key before you can flash a new firmware.

How they plan to enforce that fee to unlock an API key when the firmware is supposedly open source I don’t know. When I looked over the source code it looked like it was being written to a log.

My non lawyer, and probably wrong, advice is to send them a polite reply asking them to refer to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram (1971)