# Proposal to handle Data Openness in the Open Source AI definition \[RFC\]

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-handle-data-openness-in-the-open-source-ai-definition-rfc/561>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Tags:** draft\
**Created:** [September 12, 2024, 1:19am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-handle-data-openness-in-the-open-source-ai-definition-rfc/561 "2024-09-12T01:19:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 20

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gvlx](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/gvlx/32/381_2.png) [@gvlx](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/gvlx)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2024, 4:35pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-handle-data-openness-in-the-open-source-ai-definition-rfc/561/20 "2024-10-06T16:35:00Z")

</div>

> [@quaid](#):
>
> There is no clear and massive value for such “corner-cases” to make it worth shifting the meaning of Open to accommodate them in the definition. They have plenty of other Opens they can lay some claim to, let that be enough.

I agree.

I would push to continue the discussion under these terms: [The ZOOOM approach on Asset Openess - #3 by gvlx](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/the-zooom-approach-on-asset-openess/634/3)

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-handle-data-openness-in-the-open-source-ai-definition-rfc/561)._