Hi Merlijn, Thank you for raising this topic! I agree that it's something that we should be thinking about.
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 01:28:03PM +0100, Merlijn Sebrechts wrote: > *What are we endorsing specifically?* > > Our endorsement means two things. > > - Firstly, we are endorsing that the current definition is a good step > in the right direction. > - Secondly, we are endorsing that the OSI has the authority to create > this definition and that we have faith in their process to create and > improve this definition. I appreciate you answering this question directly, since it's the first question I had: what would it mean for Ubuntu to endorse this? There's one important aspect that I think needs to be added to what you've defined here: whatever Ubuntu adopts here must also be taken to define what Ubuntu promises about what it itself ships. For example: we have a definition of what Free Software is, and will not ship anything in the Ubuntu main or universe archive components that does not meet that definition. Snaps that we ship by default must also comply. What we ship in restricted and multiverse is similarly clearly defined. If we adopt some definition for what is acceptable to us with respect to AI models, I think it follows (or does it?) that we must commit not to ship AI components that do not meet that definition in our main and universe archive components. And we should probably extend that to any snaps that Ubuntu ships by default, too. We could choose to use your definition of endorsement _without_ tying it to what we ship, but that doesn't seem like a good idea to me - it would be an inconsistent set of values and cause user confusion. If we do tie our endorsement to what we ship, then an endorsement would have wider ramifications and so we must this yet more thoughtfully. For the (deb) archive, we have the added complication that we ship anything that Debian considers acceptable by default. It wouldn't be practical for us to be more restrictive than Debian. Looking at debian-project@, it looks like Debian might be leaning towards a more strict subset than OSAID (if anything), so perhaps that won't be an issue in practice - but it might be wise to see where Debian go first before committing. In the meantime perhaps we could make it clear what are intention is, while acknowledging that we will also accept whatever Debian accepts. We should also consult with Canonical (both management and legal) before taking any decision. Robie
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- technical-board mailing list technical-board@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
