Re: Concern for: A humble draft policy on "deep learning v.s. freedom"

[Sam Hartman <hartmans@debian.org>]

>>>>> "Mo" == Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> writes:


    >>> Specifically, I defined 3 types of pre-trained machine learning
    >>> models / deep learning models:
    >>> 
    >>> Free Model, ToxicCandy Model. Non-free Model
    >>> 
    >>> Developers who'd like to touch DL software should be cautious to
    >>> the "ToxicCandy" models. Details can be found in my draft.
    >> 
    >> With a labeling like "ToxicCandy Model" for the situation, it
    >> makes bad impression on people and I am afraid people may not be
    >> make rational decision.  Is this characterization correct and
    >> sane one?  At least, it looks to me that this is changing
    >> status-quo of our policy and practice severely.  So it is worth
    >> evaluating idea without labeling.

    Mo> My motivation for the naming "ToxicCandy" is pure: to warn
    Mo> developers about this special case as it may lead to very
    Mo> difficult copyright or software freedom questions. I admit that
    Mo> this name looks not quite friendly. Maybe "SemiFree" look
    Mo> better?

I really like the term toxic candy.
In two words it explains both that the model is appealing and
problematic.

If there are subdivisions of toxic candy that we decide are free, we
should come back and revisit and perhaps narrow toxic candy to the
problematic cases.

--Sam