Debian debates AI models and the DFSG

Posted Apr 26, 2025 14:13 UTC (Sat) by lumin (subscriber, #130448)
In reply to: Debian debates AI models and the DFSG by geofft
Parent article: Debian debates AI models and the DFSG

> A few thoughts, starting with the most minor: I am a little surprised the proposal uses the phrasing "open source". Debian has traditionally used the phrasing "free software," including in the name of the DFSG, the Debian Social Contract, and Debian policy.

I realized that problem when writing the text. However, if the proposal says:

"AI models released under DFSG-compliant license without training data or program" is not seen as DFSG-compliant.

-> "... under DFSG-compliant ..." is not seen as DFSG-compliant.

It looks weird as it looks like a paradox. I did not thought too much further on this wording issue, and replaced it with open source. I think people can anyway understand what I mean there. But you are right, we'd better revise the wording if this is going to officially land onto somewhere.

Debian debates AI models and the DFSG

Posted Apr 26, 2025 14:59 UTC (Sat) by gioele (subscriber, #61675) [Link]

> "AI models released under DFSG-compliant license without training data or program" is not seen as DFSG-compliant.
>
> -> "... under DFSG-compliant ..." is not seen as DFSG-compliant.
>
> It looks weird as it looks like a paradox.

It is however an already know "paradox": if you release a "GPL executable" but you not provide the its source, including «the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable», then you are not really complying with the terms of the GPL.

Debian debates AI models and the DFSG

Posted Apr 27, 2025 2:00 UTC (Sun) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]

I don't think it really needs to be changed, but I agree with gioele that this does not read like a paradox. Being DFSG-free is an overall state of a package, of which being released under a DFSG-compatible license is a necessary-but-not-sufficient requirement.

If you want to change it, I'd suggest replacing "open source license" with "DFSG-compatible license" to contrast with "DFSG-compliant" at the end of the sentence. (Policy also uses "comply with the DFSG" to describe what can go into main and contrib.) "Compatible," to me, means it's possible to use it in a way that fits with the DFSG, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to use it in another way. If I want to write a POSIX-compliant shell script, it's very helpful to test it against a POSIX-compatible shell, but that by itself is not enough.

Debian debates AI models and the DFSG

Posted Apr 27, 2025 15:14 UTC (Sun) by smcv (subscriber, #53363) [Link]

In the past Debian has consistently said that the things that we might or might not accept as Free (DFSG-compliant) are pieces of software, not licenses. So if foo is licensed under GPL-2.0-or-later and so is bar, we might accept foo as Free but say that bar is not Free, for example if some of bar's source code is missing.

I believe there was one case in particular where the upstream developer of a piece of software under a BSD/MIT-style license (was it Pine?) had an unusual interpretation of the license and asserted that their software was only redistributable if it was at no cost (free of charge), which would have made it impossible to sell Debian CDs with their software included. Debian responded to this by treating that specific piece of software as non-Free, even though the license it was released under is one that we would usually have accepted.