On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 5:20 PM Richard Fontana <rfontana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Following Tim's explanations of various things, here are revised > answers to the questions: > > On Mon, Feb 26, 2024 at 6:32 PM Tim Flink <tflink@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Questions > > ========= > > > > 1. Are pre-trained weights considered to be normal non-code content/data or do they require special handling? > > For Fedora license classification purposes, they should be considered > "content". However, I think for any specific pre-trained weights that > will actually be included in Fedora packages, for some initial period > I'd like to do some further review (as noted upthread, because this is > an important policy area and we don't have a lot of prior experience > in it). I don't really care how that's done, that could be through > this list or a Bugzilla or whatever. > > We'll add "pre-trained weights" to the list of examples of what > "content" is in the Fedora legal docs. > > > 2. If an upstream offers pre-trained weights and indicates that those weights are available under a license which is acceptable for non-code content in Fedora, can those pre-trained weights be included in Fedora packages? > > Yes subject to my answer to 1. > > > 3. Extending question 2, is it considered sufficient for an upstream to have a license on pre-trained weights or would a packager/reviewer need to verify that the data used to train those weights is acceptable? > > A packager/reviewer should not need to do that verification, which > seems highly impractical (which is a point I think you may have > previously made). However, that could be an aspect of the "initial > legal review" I'm suggesting we may want to have for such cases. > > > 4. Is it acceptable to package code which downloads pre-trained weights from a non-Fedora source upon first use post-installation by a user if that model and its associated weights are > > a. For a specific model? > > b. For a user-defined model which may or may not exist at the time of packaging? > > Given your explanations of these cases, I think this is pretty straightforward. > 4a: Yes > 4b: Yes > > These answers only go to matters of Fedora legal/licensing policy. If > there are technical issues raised by these questions (for example, if > there ought to be some standards around packaging of upstream > pre-trained weights) I can't give guidance or informed opinions on > that beyond my initial suggestion to raise this topic with FESCo which > seems to have been unsuccessful. > With my FESCo hat on, the main question to answer is how we classify and identify them for package reviews, which is largely a Fedora Legal question. Personally, it's basically content to me, we do probably need some explicit documentation of this for the guidance that the AI/ML SIG can use to write packaging guidelines for FPC to review. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
