Re: Proposal -- Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models
M. Zhou writes ("Proposal -- Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models"):
> Proposal A: "AI models released under open source license without original
> training data or program" are not seen as DFSG-compliant.
>
> The "AI models released under open source license without original
> training data or program", a particular type of files as explained
> above, are not seen as DFSG-compliant. Hence, they can not be
> included in the "main" section of the Debian archive. This proposal
> does not specify whether the "non-free" section of Debian archive
> can include those files.
I support the intent of this proposal and the wording seems to do the
job.
Thank you for working on this. I have some comments about wording and
structure.
Firstly, the clause "without original training data or program" is a
little ambiguous in a couple of respects:
a. I interpret this to mean that we neeed *both* the training data,
*and* the training software, for the model to be considered Free.
b. I interpret this to mean that the training data and the training
software must *also be in main*, not merely "present" (possibly
somewhere else outside Debian, and possibly not itself DFSG-free).
I think this wording could be read in other ways. But I think it
should be clear to full Debian Members, and to the ftpmasters - and
those are the people who will be implementing and enforcing this
policy.
> ----------
> Appendix
> ----------
Does this form part of the GR proposal? In my experience GR proposals
often come with some preparatory text from the proponent, which we
aren't formally voting on.
> See appendix A for detailed rationale of this proposal.
> See appendix B for background and comments about current AI software.
> See appendix C for some related previous efforts and discussions.
> See appendix D for comments on potential implications of this proposal.
> [Appendix A] https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/gr-ai-dfsg/-/blob/main/AppendixA.txt
...
When giving links in formal documents like this, you may wish to
consider whether to give URLs that specify the particular git
commitid. That nails down precisely what you're talking about - and
can even be used on a future occasion if the repository has moved
elsewhere.
If this is supposed to be part of the GR that we're voting on, and not
just explanatory background, then stating the commitids is essential.
> Disclaimer
> ----------
>
> We acknowledge that releasing useful AI models under permissive
> licenses like MIT/Expat and Apache-2.0 is a generous act from the
> original authors due to huge costs, and it is a great contribution
> to the software ecosystem and the society.
I am uncomfortable with this part of the Disclaimer.
Ian.
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
Pronouns: they/he. If I emailed you from @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk,
that is a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: