Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2
Thanks Mo for the heads-up,
and I agree with what you wrote.
Also I find it very worrisome that the FSF and the OSI come with two
definitions about AI software freedom that are radically different.
Until now, FSF-free and OSI-open definitions have kept a such a large
overlap in practice, that we can write on our hompeage that "Debian is
made of free and open source software", without anybody finding this
definition confusing. And as we also write "and will always be 100%
free", I wonder if this was a masterpiece of farseeing.
I worry that if there are two competing definitions, OSI's version will
become the refuge of those who deliberately want to leverage as many
obstacles as possible to the freedom of their users, while profiting
from calling themselves Open Source.
If the divide persists, I want Debian to chose the side of freedom. And
maybe the consequence will be that we stop calling ourselves open source
because the OSI would be killing its brand. If the OSI cares about it,
maybe we can send them a message telling that?
Also, we can also call to the people and organisations who are currently
listed as endorsers to think again about the divide they are about to
support if the current OSI draft is accepted?
https://opensource.org/ai/endorsements
Cheers,
Charles
--
Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan
Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med
Tooting from work, https://fediscience.org/@charles_plessy
Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
Reply to: