Thanks Mo for the heads-up, and I agree with what you wrote.
Also I find it very worrisome that the FSF and the OSI come with two definitions about AI software freedom that are radically different. Until now, FSF-free and OSI-open definitions have kept a such a large overlap in practice, that we can write on our hompeage that "Debian is made of free and open source software", without anybody finding this definition confusing. And as we also write "and will always be 100% free", I wonder if this was a masterpiece of farseeing. I worry that if there are two competing definitions, OSI's version will become the refuge of those who deliberately want to leverage as many obstacles as possible to the freedom of their users, while profiting from calling themselves Open Source. If the divide persists, I want Debian to chose the side of freedom. And maybe the consequence will be that we stop calling ourselves open source because the OSI would be killing its brand. If the OSI cares about it, maybe we can send them a message telling that? Also, we can also call to the people and organisations who are currently listed as endorsers to think again about the divide they are about to support if the current OSI draft is accepted? https://opensource.org/ai/endorsements Cheers, Charles -- Charles Plessy Nagahama, Yomitan, Okinawa, Japan Debian Med packaging team http://www.debian.org/devel/debian-med Tooting from work, https://fediscience.org/@charles_plessy Tooting from home, https://framapiaf.org/@charles_plessy
