A NSFW detector with CoreML (github.com)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by pexavc@lemmy.world to c/opensource@lemmy.ml

42 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Other samples:

Android: https://github.com/nipunru/nsfw-detector-android

Flutter (BSD-3): https://github.com/ahsanalidev/flutter_nsfw

Keras MIT https://github.com/bhky/opennsfw2

I feel it's a good idea for those building native clients for Lemmy implement projects like these to run offline inferences on feed content for the time-being. To cover content that are not marked NSFW and should be.

What does everyone think, about enforcing further censorship, especially in open-source clients, on the client side as long as it pertains to this type of content?

Edit:

There's also this, but it takes a bit more effort to implement properly. And provides a hash that can be used for reporting needs. https://github.com/AsuharietYgvar/AppleNeuralHash2ONNX .

Python package MIT: https://pypi.org/project/opennsfw-standalone/

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

2 of them are lincensed under BSD-3, so not open source. The the 3rd one uses Firebase, so no thanks.

Edit: BSD-3 is open source. I confused it with BSD-4. My bad.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

How is BSD-3 not open source? I think you are confusing "Free/Libre" and Open Source. BSD-3/MIT licenses are absolutely open source. GPL is Free/Libre and Open Source (FLOSS)

[+] BrikoX@lemmy.zip -9 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

It's not by OSD definition. Having code source available =/ open source.

And most Lemmy clients I have seen use GPL or AGPL licences, so they couldn't use code licensed under BSD.

Edit: This is incorrect. I confused it with BSD-4. My bad.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

What in the BSD-3 license goes against OSD exactly?

You are clearly confused. The BSD-3 isn't only "having the source", it gives you the right to package, distribute, and modify the source code at will. What it doesn't have compared to the GPL is protections from someone not sharing their modifications (for example when used in closed source products). In that sense it is more "freedom" than the GPL, but that freedom comes with a cost to the community, and in a sense the freedom afforded to the original author.

It is literally approved by the OSI itself: https://opensource.org/license/bsd-3-clause/

And yes, BSD-3 libraries are compatible with the GPL: https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-software-licenses-101-bsd-3-clause-license/

Is there a confidently wrong community on Lemmy yet?

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

You are correct. I'm sorry, I confused it with BSD-4 as that used to be the 3rd clause. I updated my post and thank you for calling me out.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's still wrong though. The BSD-4 is literally FSF approved. It's just not GPL compatible and not technically OSI approved. But only on a technicality. The only difference between BSD-3 (BSD New) and BSD-4 (BSD Old) is the advertisement clause. It has nothing to do with redistribution, packaging, or modification of the code. OSI doesn't agree with the advertisement clause so it's not officially approved, doesn't mean it isn't Open Source.

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

That's where I disagree. While it's true that the only difference is the GPL complience it's definetely against the spirit of open source and OSD. So it is source available license, but calling it open source is a stretch. The simple fact that it renders it unsable for GPL projects go against what open source stands for.

[-] wildbus8979@sh.itjust.works -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

True as that maybe be, your original statement "BSD-4" is not open source is still completely wrong, plain and simple. BSD-4 is not just having access to the source, it gives you significant rights over the source as well. The incompatibility lie with a technicality, an inconvenient one, but a technicality nontheless. Even the FSF agrees.

[-] true_blue@lemmy.comfysnug.space 1 points 1 year ago

I do agree with you that 4-clause BSD is open-source, but only just barely, and I agree with GP that it goes against the spirit of FOSS even if it is technically "open-source".

Plus the advertising clause is just an obnoxious thing to have in a license regardless.