Re: legal questions regarding machine learning models
Dmitrijs Ledkovs <email@example.com> writes:
> That's what I thought as well cause source is not available in
> preffered form of modification.
I don't understand this. The definition that has been used in this
thread is that the preferred form of the work for modifying that work
*is* the source form.
> But imagine if noone in debian knew that this raster font was
> generated from something else, then it would DFSG-free.
No. If it violates DFSG, but that fact is not yet known, that does not
make it DFSG-free. If people act on an assumption (as we must frequently
do), that does not alter the truth.
> So just expanding on that. DFSG source requirement is concluded by
> judging each time what is source. And this is biased sometimes as we
> see in this example.
It is indeed open to interpretation, and that interpretation is
necessary in order to make a judgement of whether a work should be
considered to meet the DFSG.
> The model (I presume in somekind of human or machine parsable format)
> if distributed under free license does allow to view all parameters
> and tweak them.
Just as distributing a program as a binary blob “allows” the recipient
to alter any bytes they like. That doesn't mean such a distribution is
sufficient to be free under the DFSG.
> Now imagine we have […] what will be source then?
If your intent is to demonstrate that taking something to extremes leads
to absurdities, you have a very easy task that has been done many times
before. That doesn't help in making judgements about *actual* works and
the *actual* freedoms recipients have in them.
\ “Know what I hate most? Rhetorical questions.” —Henry N. Camp |