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/

  • BrikoX
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            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.