The issue is also discussed here:
https://lwn.net/Articles/1019028/
A better wording goes:
s/open source license/DFSG-compatible license/g
It is fixed in the git repo:
https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/gr-ai-dfsg/-/commit/9496f9fb6405db5a99fff1672cd4bad66c925c24
The proposal after amendament:
===============================================================================
Proposal A: "AI models released under DFSG-compatible license license without
original training data or program" are not seen as DFSG-compliant.
===============================================================================
The "AI models released under DFSG-compatible license 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.
On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 13:22 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > "M" == M Zhou <lumin@debian.org> writes:
> ===================================
> M> Proposal A: "AI models released under open source license without
> M> original training data or program" are not seen as
> M> DFSG-compliant.
> M> ===============================================================================
>
> M> The "AI models released under open source license without
> M> original training data or program", a particular type of files as
>
>
> I find the use of Open Source License in a Debian context problematic.
> The DFSG is not the OSD, and we should care whether a license is DFSG
> free not OSI approved.
>
> I hope that you would be willing to accept an amendment to replace all
> uses of open source in your proposal.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part