Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.project > #13633

Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Sun, Oct 27, 2024 at 09:00:07AM -0300, David Bremner wrote:
> While I agree with Stefano's later followup that GR's are not good tools
> for building concensus, I'm not sure such policy decision is really in
> the spirit of the FTP master delegation. I recognize that my skepticism
> is influenced by the fact that I would consider following the proposed
> "OSAID" model to be a substantial weakening of the DFSG. 

But who's saying that Debian will follow OSAID? Historically, it is OSI
that has followed Debian, not the other way around. And the only mention
of "open source" in our founding documents is to point out that the OSD
was based on the DFSG; everything else is about "free software". AFAICT
OSI decisions do not influence Debian policies in any way.

Re: GR, I'd be totally fine with one. (And I'd personally vote in favor
of a text that states that Debian-acceptable ML models should come with
DFSG-compliant training datasets.) I just not want to use the GR tool as
a hammer against a delegated team if no override is needed.

I don't understand your argument that this decision is not in the realm
of the ftpmaster activities. How could it *not* be, given they are the
team deciding NEW queue acceptance, and that most notably they do so
based on licensing aspects?

Cheers
-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli . zack@upsilon.cc . https://upsilon.cc/zack  _. ^ ._
Full professor of Computer Science              o     o   o     \/|V|\/
Télécom Paris, Polytechnic Institute of Paris     o     o o    </>   <\>
Co-founder & CSO Software Heritage            o o o     o       /\|^|/\
Mastodon: https://mastodon.xyz/@zacchiro                        '" V "'

Back to linux.debian.project | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Mo Zhou <lumin@debian.org> - 2024-10-26 20:10 +0200
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-26 22:30 +0200
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 David Bremner <david@tethera.net> - 2024-10-27 14:00 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-27 16:50 +0100
      Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 David Bremner <david@tethera.net> - 2024-10-27 17:50 +0100
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Charles Plessy <plessy@debian.org> - 2024-10-28 13:20 +0100
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-29 12:20 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Jeremy Stanley <fungi@yuggoth.org> - 2024-10-29 17:20 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> - 2024-10-29 18:30 +0100
    Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2024-10-30 08:50 +0100
  Re: Concerns regarding the "Open Source AI Definition" 1.0-RC2 Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@debian.org> - 2024-10-30 08:50 +0100

csiph-web