Report of working group document review

Model parameters (including weights) If assumed copyrightable, available under OSI-compliant license

What does saying explicitly “if assumed copyrightable” add here? The OSD doesn’t contain that hypothethical, and still everyone considers that software source code that is not copyrightable (e.g., because it’s just non-copyrightable data embedded in code) is open source software according to the OSD.

I have the feeling that if we just leaves out that “if…”, the result would be exactly the same.

Keeping it in, on the other hand, will be an endless source of discussions and complexity. (Starting from the fact that weights could end up being considered copyrightable in some jurisdictions but not others, what then?)

Available under open documentation license

What’s the definition of an “open documentation license”?

Here too, the OSD does not say anything specific about documentation shipped with code, and that is fine for everyone. Why should we treat documentation of “AI systems” any different? Can’t we just require documentation to be available under an OSI-compatible license? I don’t see any practical drawback in doing that.

My 2 cents