# Report from BLOOM working group

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Tags:** process\
**Created:** [February 29, 2024, 6:32pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243 "2024-02-29T18:32:56Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aspie96](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/aspie96/32/73_2.png) [@Aspie96](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/Aspie96)\
**Post date:** [March 4, 2024, 3:59am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243/2 "2024-03-04T03:59:08Z")

</div>

I hope this doesn’t come off the wrong way, but why was there a BLOOM working group?  
BLOOM models are under a proprietary license, so they are proprietary regardless of the debate around whether training data or preprocessing code needs to be provided.

Is there a Mistral working group?

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/report-from-bloom-working-group/243)._