circumstances.run is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
a rather private instance with annoying culture theme applied all over; we don't speak marain (yet).

Server stats:

20
active users

tante
Public

Thinking about the OSI "Open Source AI" Definition and how to proceed. Like say they changed their definition to demand that all training data was "available" (right now you only need to describe it) meaning there are URLs that you can access. Think YouTube Videos or social media posts or whatnot. But not all content is under a free license, some explicitly copyrighted with "all rights reserved".

Would you consider a machine learning system trained on that data still "open source" in the intention of the Open Source definition (opensource.org/osd)?

Open Source Initiative · The Open Source DefinitionIntroduction Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open source software must comply with the following criteria: 1. Free Redistribution The license shall…
d@nny "disc@" mc²
Quiet public

@tante no! and it demonstrates the OSI's purpose all along was to water down the radical liberatory potential of free software!

tante
Quiet public

@hipsterelectron I'd argue the same but I'm interested to see how a different reasoning would work

d@nny "disc@" mc²
Quiet public

@tante just trying to start a discussion :) i also want to hear that

d@nny "disc@" mc²
Quiet public

@tante i have difficulty describing why and how the definition of open source was created to bowdlerize free software (which i also think is insufficient but better)—would like to understand how others relate to the term

tante
Quiet public

@hipsterelectron Yeah. Everyone should hate the OSI because their whole stick is to depoliticize Free Software. But it's there and is used - potentially even in legislation. So it matters.

flere-imsaho
Quiet public

@tante @hipsterelectron the osi definition is pretty much the same as dfsg, the debian free software guidelines (it is, after all, directly derived from them), and debian looked primarily for a practical way of differentiating licenses.

now the goals of osi were very obviously focused on removing the ideological veneer from the free software (by any name) and make it palatable for the corporate – possibility of which wasn't by any means obvious at the time.

i'd be vary of accusing debian of not being radical enough. to be frank, i think that complaining that people were not radical enough in the late 1990s and early 2000s is pretty ahistorical, and a very easy thing to say 25 years later.

d@nny "disc@" mc²
Quiet public

@mawhrin @tante cc @biocrusoe who has taught me about debian

flere-imsaho
Quiet public

@hipsterelectron @tante (do take this as an additional input in your considerations, disliking osi is not a bad thing at all, be it the open source initiative or the open systems interconnection)