! Responses by people wanting to defend, promote, etc. so-called “AI” ! are *explicitly* neither solicitated nor welcome (last time, aigarius ! managed to derail the discussion about the counter-proposal), as they ! have a different proposal to express themselves.
On Thu, 26 Feb 2026, […] wrote: > There's a discussion on debian-vote (at least) on AI policy in > Debian, which is a much better venue. Thanks for noting. I’d like to resubmit my counter-proposal from almost a year ago. As it seems, it’s even more “counter” this time. The last version thereof was: https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2025/05/msg00145.html There was a thread of discussion related to that. Not sure whether we need to pick up anything more from that. (There was a response from soren about the whole copyright thing; we know more nowadays: training a model for analytic use (to discover trends, etc.) is exempt under the TDM exception to copyright, unless explicitly opted-out in a machine-readable way (which didn’t exist back then and which likely are still not honoured and whereof there are at least three, these days…); using a model to produce output isn’t covered by TDM, though, so it’d need an explicit licence or use PD works only; the US link from… this thread somewhere, IIRC… also doesn’t give such permission). zigo wanted to be more permissive for non-free but otherwise agreed-ish. Perhaps we can work on this together and then either come to some agreement or split it up into two ballot options that only differ in handling of non-free. I don’t have much time or spoons for this, unfortunately. bye, //mirabilos -- Sometimes they [people] care too much: pretty printers [and syntax highligh- ting, d.A.] mechanically produce pretty output that accentuates irrelevant detail in the program, which is as sensible as putting all the prepositions in English text in bold font. -- Rob Pike in "Notes on Programming in C"
