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

Simon Josefsson <[email protected]> Wed, 07 May 2025 19:36:13 +0200

Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>

Clint Adams <[email protected]> writes:

> On Wed, May 07, 2025 at 06:10:37PM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>>That is not my preference nor what I would want to see happen, but I
>>think it is consistent with how Debian approach including non-free
>>firmware in the official installer images, and how Debian approaches
>>licensing on other non-source files inside packages.
>
> So what is your preference and what would you want to see happen?
> I ask because I see no good options here.  I am thinking about
> this from the perspective of a user who wants to use the models
> unmodified and from the perspective of a user who wants to
> modify the models to work better with a face that the models
> "consider" an outlier.

I think Thorsten Glaser's proposal on the surface looks more in line
with what I would want to see, but I don't think we understand the full
implications of any of the proposals right now.

https://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2025/04/msg00118.html

Some approach to have LLM tools in 'main' when they can work with models
that would be appropriate for inclusion in 'main' seems fine to me.
Then we can ship models for that tool in 'non-free', for people who want
to work with some larger model.  I don't see a need to permit LLM tools
in 'main' that are unable to work with any libre LLM model, those tools
could go into 'contrib'.

/Simon

signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 1.2 KB)