Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
I know I should not reply to polemic posts because it is just one step
short of troll-feeding, but anyway:
> I suggest you start your own distribution, in which you won’t ship:
> * xfonts-* (bitmap renderings of non-free vector fonts)
I agree that these do not belong in a free distribution. There should be
plenty of free alternatives, ness pah?
> * all icons shipped without SVG source
> * all pictures shipped without XCF/PSD source (oh yeah, that makes
> a lot)
I would handle these on a case-by-case basis. For a 64x64 icon which has
no connection to other icons (apart from what can easily be done by copy
and paste), I would say the icon itself is just as good as its source.
For SVG: Yes, the ability to scale the icon to a new resolution is very
I assume that your next move will be something like "But then, we cannot
ship GNOME or KDE!". I have seen such arguments before (don't know if it
was from you, though). This is just blackmail. In the same way you could
argue for the inclusion of <insert shiny propietary software that only
runs on windows>.
And, personally, I do not care whether GNOME or KDE are in Debian.
> * actually, all pictures that are initially photographs of an
> object (the preferred form of modification is the original
> object; if you want to see it at another angle, you need to take
> another photograph)
> * all sound files shipped without the full genetic code of the
You are being ridiculous on purpose. Source, as I understand it, is
always something digital.
> You could call it something like gNewSense, and you could discuss during
> hours with RMS how much better it is this way.
Just because GNU and RMS have similar views, that does not immediately
make the view invalid. This has to be judged on a case-by-case basis.