On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 03:02:57PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > However, I'm not sure it's very *practical* unless our position is that > we're simply not going to package software that uses machine learning > models (a decision that we could certainly make, but which seems a bit > contrary to our normal desire to be a universal operating system). > Problems just off the top of my head include: [...]
Let me just add one more to your list, which I hinted at in the previous message, but would like to make more explicit. - It's more likely with training data than with (source) code that we will encounter situations where material is not copyrightable. (Not in most LLM cases, for the reasons you mentioned, but we will in other cases, like very probably the gnubg one.) Hence we will have to make an explicit decision that "this material, without an associated copyright notice and license" is DFSG-free. That is a very different kind of decisions than the ones we are used to make (via ftpmasters), because it is a *case by case* one, rather than *license by license*. As such, it scales much less. Cheers -- Stefano Zacchiroli . z...@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 "'
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
