Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2
Thanks for bringing this issue to our attention.
I agree that the "Open Source AI Definition" is NOT DFSG-compliant.
"The source code" must include everything needed to rebuild the
software so that it *works the same* as the original. An AI system
doesn't "work the same" -- i.e., give the same output from the same
input -- without the training data, so the training data is clearly
part of the source.
Requiring that users must "build a substantially equivalent" part of
the source on their own, as stated in the "Data Information"
paragraph, is obviously at odds with the DFSG. That's like not
releasing the source code at all and claiming that it's still free
software because "a skilled person" could rewrite it. That's obvious
bullshit.
Furthermore, clause (1) of that paragraph explicitly states that there
might be parts of the training dataset that are "unshareable". I see
that as a direct contradiction with the expectation that one can build
an equivalent dataset. And clause (3) states that parts of the dataset
might be obtained "for fee". That too is in direct contradiction with
the requirement that the software can be *freely* redistributed (or is
that a typo and they really meant "for free"?!?).
While Debian is of course not required to adhere to the OSAID, it's
going to have an impact on the free software ecosystem. I believe that
it's Debian's responsibility, as a very respected player in that
ecosystem, to issue a public statement saying that the OSAID in its
current form is unacceptable. (That goes beyond whether we should
allow OSAID-compliant software into Debian, so I think it's outside
the mandate of ftpmasters, although of course their opinion would be
welcome.)
I'm not sure whether a GR is needed for that or it's enough to reach
consensus by an informal procedure. (Starting a GR process might be
desirable because it sets a hard deadline and forces a decision -- or
it might be undesirable for exactly the same reasons?)
Gerardo
Reply to: