Re: Non-LLM example where we do not in practice use original training data
Andrey Rakhmatullin <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Tue, May 06, 2025 at 05:12:12PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote: >>>FWIW, in terms of free software ethics, I consider non-open data to be >>>"less nasty" than non-free code. >> >> Debian is unusual in the way we interpret our mission statement as >> extending to everything we distribute being Free, not just our >> executable code. > >I don't think Debian is perfectly consistent in applying that principle: >for example, the text of the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) is >included in Debian packages (in 'main') and has a clearly non-free >license, and IIRC sometimes not even in debian/copyright. Same for the text of GPL. >There are >other examples historically of similar content too, e.g., IETF RFCs These are usually considered bugs. -- WBR, wRAR
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 894 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQJhBAABCgBLFiEEolIP6gqGcKZh3YxVM2L3AxpJkuEFAmgaK7UtFIAAAAAAFQAP cGthLWFkZHJlc3NAZ251cGcub3Jnd3JhckBkZWJpYW4ub3JnAAoJEDNi9wMaSZLh sTUP/0mzeekOn901ERGMKYnlJ9dkrzrF5ZYEyi8IjbrjG0rNuQ/54xO9wVvhimOf M3+ziCTDO6I6bis1KdlreeH2qXZaLm9apljxSlaU7YngvYnq22KC1eZVCnywBqSn 9VFQgIV9u5kPb6p/bTptVyOupCmlShC/aCn06iGmx/pcOQevxYENo73ACN5nYjXd jaXGGUQw315M3jXsq9OXX884b5lbCMUcBBe3Uski0Z2xqadXwlrhBGXia2BFphDa ZslSrUMG6/egAwjBZh2xGF+ct77SmPoNCvIzGlMNG3BV+JVuD22KPRhb1apIBO/c 87rtOLhSqTQ/713rd0WlcbZnvm/BS/uAArrU8IWrnSMSXoO1KrshEj1oQz4q2+IP QeeKTlyOGJ8WyUVem355xNalysOeyhruyxk8oIhA5NuUowEpnb97STXoV3IVhqu8 hu6HNf8m/OdJt/jKHCs+fMmDd+uxqlTtcKLLctJcD8gwzQQd/2P8ebgkpsFsnHdf +JsvWKT1v3ZE4Sde3wWpyQorRYy/71C64ChA1SNJzyeEzvU9V5AFmXey2CCjSw03 IjFU5POoI/GIgL2iDapYIpqJdZNnuLeJrjHoHVX3BZvZBtZAI5xdbCVJeKh0JD3t uRE3jryeSZQupycISic0xJuUUlINkMeszr5vsmXPlWS7GFDd =o/fr -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----