Re: Ballot option: Allow only Public/Open Source AI for contributions (was Re: Ballot Option: Allow public AI for translations)

Nilesh Patra <[email protected]> Thu, 13 Aug 2026 10:38:26 +0530
Newsgroups	gmane.linux.debian.devel.vote
Message-ID	<[email protected]>
On 13/08/26 5:36 am, Pirate Praveen wrote:
> I got some feedback privately to clarify some more things.
> 
> ---updated proposal v4.0 ---
> 
> Using its power under Constitution section 4.1 (5), the project issues 
> the following statement describing its current position on AI-assisted 
> contributions. This statement describes the position of the project at 
> the time it is adopted. That position may evolve as time passes without 
> the need to resort to future general resolutions. The GR process remains 
> available if the project needs a decision and cannot come to a consensus.
> 
> Preamble
> 
> LLMs and its impact on society and environment is a hugely polarizing 
> debate.
> 
> In this document, we mainly look at contributions using LLMs.
> 
> LLMs have made a huge leap in language translations, but at the same 
> time depending on big tech companies to provide this service is not a 
> good idea. When it comes to generating code, we also need to consider 
> how it weakens the idea of copyleft, unlike translations.
> 
> Enforcing copyleft requires us to depend on copyright law, if LLM 
> generated code cannot be copyrighted, then LLM could be used to take out 
> copyleft requirements from Free Software projects. But this is not 
> something we can really control.
> 
> Basics
> 
> 1. If a Free Software LLM model is run locally, we have some control 
> over it (we still need to retrain it, if we want to modify it). But even 
> for that level of control, the high hardware specifications required to 
> run these models makes access to such hardware difficult. So we cannot 
> entirely insist on running an LLM model locally, similar to not 
> insisting on use of Free Hardware Designs. So we will need to 
> collectively run the models to make sure everyone have access to Free 
> Software models in practice.
> 
> 2. Public AI is AI as public infrastructure like highways, water, or 
> electricity. Public AI uses Free Software and Open Weight models. Open 
> Weights refer to the final weights and biases of a trained neural 
> network. These values, once locked in, determine how the model 
> interprets input data and generates outputs.
> 
> Since Public AI is not a well defined term, we need a more precise 
> definition. PublicAI.Co also complies with Open Source AI definition by 
> OSI (https://opensource.org/ai) so we will base Public AI definition on 
> Open Source AI definition.
> 
> For AI to be accessible to people, it has to be available easily to 
> people, like Wikipedia or Lets Encrypt. Not for profit collaborations 
> between multiple organizations and public funding is essential to keep 
> it sustainable, though public funding is not a requirement. How we are 
> going to fund such Public AI will evolve in the future.
> 
> So to evaluate an AI web service, we will use the definition of Open 
> Source AI by OSI, but some requirements may be relaxed.
> 
> 3. At this point, we don't want to insist on training data being freely 
> available, similar to how we don't insist on Free Hardware Designs. The 
> challenges to practically being able to use the available data should be 
> factored in. Similar to how costly it would be to produce hardware from 
> Free Hardware Designs, even when training data is available, huge 
> computing power is required to use it practically.
> 
> This point is a specific relaxation from the Open Source AI definition.
> 
> So Public AI = Open Source AI + relaxed requirement on training data.
> 
> Guidelines
> 
> 1. Translations generated by Public AI can be accepted.
> 
> 2. Code / documentation generated by Publc AI can also be accepted. 
> Ideally it should preserve share alike / copyleft conditions of original 
> code used in training, but how copyright law evolves is not in our control.
> 
> 3. Contributions (code/bug reports/patches/documentation etc) assisted 
> by Public AI should be accepted.
> 
> 4. Any such contributions should also follow the generally accepted 
> norms for contributions like ownership and quality.
> 
> The person submitting any such contributions generated or assisted by 
> Public AI should take full responsibility for its quality.
> 
> 5. Any contributions using generative AI/LLM systems not matching 
> requirements of Public AI will not be accepted.
> 
> References
> 
> An example to understand what Public AI looks like in practice is 
> https://publicai.co, which is funded by Mozilla, the Future of Life 
> Institute, and the Center for Cultural Innovation. This project is the 
> inspiration and basis for this document.
> 
> ---updated proposal v 3.0 ---
> 
> If you feel Open Source AI is missing in the current set of ballot 
> options, I'd appreciate seconds for this option. We could still clarify 
> the draft if there are ambiguities.
> 
> Summary:
> 
> The core part of this proposal is, Accept if Public AI, else reject.
> 
> Public AI = Open Source AI + relaxed requirement on training data.

Seconded, thanks!
OpenPGP_0x2A27904BD7243EDA.asc (application/pgp-keys, 1.8 KB)
OpenPGP_signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, 228 B)