Le Mon, May 05, 2025 at 01:12:13PM -0600, Sam Hartman a écrit : > > I'm not sure if this is too late. The mail to debian-devel-announce was > kind of late, and I hope there is still some discussion time left. > > It is late enough that I am immediately seeking seconds for the > following proposal. > I am also open to wordsmithing if we have time. > > If we decide to take more time to think about this issue and build > project consensus, I would be delighted if we did not vote now. > > Rationale: > > TL;DR: If in practice we are able to modify the software we have, and > the license is DFSG free, then I think we meet DFSG 2 and the software > should be DFSG free. > > This proposal extends on the comments I made in > https://lists.debian.org/tsled098ieb....@suchdamage.org > > > It's been my experience that given the costs of AI training, often the > model itself is the preferred form of modification. I find this > particularly true in the case of LLMs based on my experience over the > last year. I particularly disagree with Russ that doing a full > parameter fine tuning of a model is anything like calling into a > library; to me it seems a lot more like modifying a Smalltalk world or > changing a LambdaMoo world and dumping a new core. Even LORA style > retraining looks a lot like the sort of patch files permitted by DFSG 4. > I disagree with those who claim that if we had the original training > data we would choose to start there when we want to modify a model.
Without the original training data, we have no way to know what it is "inside" the model. The model could generate backdoors and non-free copyrighted material or even more harmful content. Cheers -- Bill. <ballo...@debian.org> Imagine a large red swirl here.
