# Draft v.0.0.7 of the Open Source AI Definition is available for comments

**URL:** https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-is-available-for-comments/298
**Category:** Open Source AI
**Tags:** draft
**Created:** [April 12, 2024, 4:10pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-is-available-for-comments/298 "2024-04-12T16:10:36Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![stefano](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/stefano/32/4_2.png) [@stefano](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/stefano)
#### Post date: [April 13, 2024, 8:46am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-is-available-for-comments/298/6 "2024-04-13T08:46:49Z")

</div>

Welcome to the debate

> [@anon18632855](#):
>
> the _ **checklist** _ makes the requisite inputs for said modifications (i.e., training data) optional but “appreciated”.  
> […]  
> Granted, most models will not meet the definition

The issue is not that “most models will not meet the definition” but that _none_ will do. Consider that the most open systems like Pythia currently **cannot** distribute their source data because of legal uncertanties so they technically would fail such a requirement. Additionally, a whole class of ML systems would be excluded from ever being Open Source AI (federated learning and other privacy-preserving techniques). This [thread has more arguments.](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/training-data-access/152/)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-7-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-is-available-for-comments/298)._