Re: Non-LLM example where we do not in practice use original training data
Andrey Rakhmatullin <wrar@debian.org> writes:
> Simon Josefsson wrote:
>> I don't think Debian is perfectly consistent in applying that
>> principle: for example, the text of the Developer Certificate of
>> Origin (DCO) is included in Debian packages (in 'main') and has a
>> clearly non-free license, and IIRC sometimes not even in
>> debian/copyright.
> Same for the text of GPL.
License texts have always been a special exception, and I kind of wish we
would amend the DFSG to make that clear. Not because I think the status of
license texts is somehow in question, but because having one undeclared
exception makes people think we should have other undeclared exceptions. I
would much prefer to take the time to enumerate all of our major
exceptions.
This is probably the rules lawyer in me who likes having everything pinned
down as well as we can.
I do still want us to remain flexible around edge cases and interpret the
DFSG as humans and not like a computer program, but licenses are a
sufficiently obvious exception that I think we should ideally spell that
out, along with anything else that's similarly substantial and common.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: