# Share your thoughts about draft v0.0.9

**URL:** https://discuss.opensource.org/t/share-your-thoughts-about-draft-v0-0-9/514
**Category:** Open Source AI
**Created:** [August 22, 2024, 12:42pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/share-your-thoughts-about-draft-v0-0-9/514 "2024-08-22T12:42:30Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![shujisado](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/shujisado/32/230_2.png) [@shujisado](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/shujisado)
#### Post date: [August 22, 2024, 3:02pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/share-your-thoughts-about-draft-v0-0-9/514/2 "2024-08-22T15:02:52Z")

</div>

This is excellent. I thought there wouldn’t be any major changes in this version 0.0.9, but I am pleasantly surprised.

I believe it was a wise decision to separate the checklist document from OSAID. This makes the intended thinking behind OSAID easier to understand.  
Additionally, splitting the model into “code” and “weights” is a very good idea. At least in Japan, the “code” portion as defined in OSAID 0.0.9 clearly falls under copyright, so it makes sense to separate it from the “weights” portion.

I also noticed when looking at the checklist that there have been revisions to consider those who advocate for the existence of a complete dataset. While I cannot agree with the argument that datasets should be mandatory, I understand the sentiment behind the request. I don’t think there is a significant change in the substantive meaning compared to version 0.0.8, but it does send a message that datasets are also important.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/share-your-thoughts-about-draft-v0-0-9/514)._