Comment by isityettime

The "data information" section ultimately says that a mere description of the training data is sufficient, which is the dilution on the part of the OSI that the FSF and SFC have criticized. I'm aligned with that criticism.

As for the "open source license" issue, you need the four fundamental software freedoms with whatever is distributed, just like with conventional open-source software. The OSAID enumerates a formulation of each of all four, but this is the one that this release fails to meet:

> An Open Source AI is an AI system made available under terms and in a way that grant the freedoms to¹ [...] [u]se the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission.

> 1: These freedoms are derived from the Free Software Definition (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)

(The footnote is theirs, not mine.)

So the OSI agree with me that these weights cannot be considered, in their terms, "open-source weights". Our disagreement is that I think the training data itself should be considered a necessary part of a bona fide open-source ML model.

I think the answer to ethical concerns about releasing training data that involves data that carries privacy restrictions, like medical data, is that such models cannot be free/open-source. I think that's okay; it's okay to acknowledge that not every machine learning model in the world can be open-source. Eve the FSF, who are generally hardliners about using, let alone producing, non-free software, admit the ethical use of non-free models under just such circumstances. They just so so without blurring the distinction between free and non-free, which is the tack I wish the OSI had taken.