Hello guys,
On 2019-06-10 13:14, Sam Hartman wrote:
> I really like the term toxic candy.
> In two words it explains both that the model is appealing and
> problematic.
So let's keep this name :-)
> If there are subdivisions of toxic candy that we decide are free, we
> should come back and
Hi,
On Sun, Jun 09, 2019 at 09:27:42AM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Hi Osamu,
>
> On 2019-06-09 13:48, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> > Let's think in a bit different perspective.
...
... (I have some explanation for GPL-contamination concern later)
...
> Let me emphasize this again: Don't forget security when
> "Osamu" == Osamu Aoki writes:
Osamu> Hi, Let's think in a bit different perspective.
Osamu> What is the outcome of "Deep Lerning". That's "knowledge".
Osamu> If the dictionary of "knowledge" is expressed in a freely
Osamu> usable software format with free license, isn't
> "Mo" == Mo Zhou writes:
>>> Specifically, I defined 3 types of pre-trained machine learning
>>> models / deep learning models:
>>>
>>> Free Model, ToxicCandy Model. Non-free Model
>>>
>>> Developers who'd like to touch DL software should be cautious to
>>>
Hi Osamu,
On 2019-06-09 13:48, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Let's think in a bit different perspective.
>
> What is the outcome of "Deep Lerning". That's "knowledge".
Don't mix everything into a single obscure word "knowledge".
That things is not representable through programming language
or
Hi,
Let's think in a bit different perspective.
What is the outcome of "Deep Lerning". That's "knowledge".
If the dictionary of "knowledge" is expressed in a freely usable
software format with free license, isn't it enough?
If you want more for your package, that's fine. Please promote such
Hi Osamu,
On 2019-06-09 08:28, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> Although I understand the intent of "SemiFree" or "Tainted" (by Yao), I
> don't think these are a good choice. We need to draw a line between
> FREE(=main) and NON-FREE(non-free) as a organization. I think there are
There is no such a line as
Hi Mo,
On Sat, Jun 08, 2019 at 10:07:13PM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Hi Osamu,
>
> On 2019-06-08 18:43, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> >> This draft is conservative and overkilling, and currently
> >> only focus on software freedom. That's exactly where we
> >> start, right?
> >
> > OK but it can't be where
Hi,
>> With a labeling like "ToxicCandy Model" for the situation, it makes bad
>> impression on people and I am afraid people may not be make rational
>> decision. Is this characterization correct and sane one? At least,
>> it looks to me that this is changing status-quo of our policy and
>>
Hi Osamu,
On 2019-06-08 18:43, Osamu Aoki wrote:
>> This draft is conservative and overkilling, and currently
>> only focus on software freedom. That's exactly where we
>> start, right?
>
> OK but it can't be where we end-up-with.
That's why I said the two words "conservative" and
Hi,
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 12:11:14AM -0700, Mo Zhou wrote:
> Hi people,
I see your good intention but this is basically changing status-quo for
the main requirement.
> https://salsa.debian.org/lumin/deeplearning-policy
> (issue tracker is enabled)
I read it ;-)
> This draft is
11 matches
Mail list logo
