[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: General Resolution: Interpretation of DFSG on Artificial Intelligence (AI) Models



Thanks a lot Mo for your work on this!

I have two quick comments:

 - In 2000, Debian's role in the relicensing of the Qt library was well
   recoginsed.  There are battles we can win.

   https://web.archive.org/web/20180324223759/http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/reports/2269/1/
   (Link from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_Public_License#cite_note-3)

 - Of course, chances will by higher if more people and projects join
   us.  One main argument against Mo's proposal is the cost difficulty
   of hosting the raw data.  For the models that are in Debian at the
   moment in Trixie, it is hard to think that the problem will not be
   solved if it really matters to the Free Software commmunity in
   general.

 - Even for retraining, I would be interested to hear a comparison
   between the environmental footprint of one Debian release, including
   all the continuous integration tests including mass rebuilds,
   autopgktests, reproducible build tests etc, plus the distribution via
   mirrors and CDNs, a couple of Debconfs, etc, compared with one or few
   retainings of all the models we actually ship, to check
   reproducibility of the output or at least the user experience…

 - Amendments or counter proposals that contain an exemption for time
   (releases, years…), either broadly or limited only to software
   that is already in Trixie, etc., are cheap to write, accept and act
   on.

Sorry if it has been already  discussed.  I will not have time to read
the whole thread (summaries welcome).

Have a nice week-end!

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: