Re: Non-LLM example where we do not in practice use original training data

Hi,

On Mon, 2025-05-05 at 14:27 -0600, Sam Hartman wrote:
> If I wanted to package up my classifier state and distribute it under a
> free software license, I think it should be DFSG free.
> I think that to satisfy the DFSG I would need to include  all the
> training data I still had and any scripts I used.

And the training data would have to be under a DFSG-free license. I
doubt phishing or spam mail comes with proper licensing; even ham
doesn't do this (what are the license terms of this mail?). So if you
were required to include training data it wouldn't be possible even for
fairly boring classifiers.

Ansgar