OSI sponsors include Meta, Microsoft, Salesforce and many others. It would seem unlikely that they'd demand the training data to be free and available.
Well, another org is getting directors' salaries while open source writers get nothing.
Well, another org is getting directors' salaries while open source writers get nothing.
And going the quotations in TFA, it seems the FSF's thinking about this is clear and nuanced, as usual:
> [T]he FSF makes a distinction between non-free and unethical in this case:
> > It may be that some nonfree ML have valid moral reasons for not releasing training data, such as personal medical data. In that case, we would describe the application as a whole as nonfree. But using it could be ethically excusable if it helps you do a specialized job that is vital for society, such as diagnosing disease or injury.
I wonder who has legal liability for the closed-data generated weights and some of the rubbish they spew out. Since users will be unable to change the source-data inputs, and will only be able to tweak these compiled-model outputs.
Is such tweaking analogous to having a car resprayed, and the manufacturer washes their hands of any liability over design safety.