Thank you @nick.
@lumin: I think open data is a bridge too far for now, and that what matters to protect the four freedoms is access, per my reply on the MOF’s Class I requirements which permit datasets under “any license or unlicensed”. This is the compromise I believe we need to make, even if temporarily (like we did for the binary blobs), and it will mean @stefano can satisfy the board’s approval criteria (slide 9) that the OSAID “provides real-life examples”, as well as being “ready by October 2024”, and it should be better “supported by diverse stakeholders” (slide 22): Developers, Deployers, End Users, and Subjects.
@Shamar: The bar is set by the lowest acceptable requirements, so while like @lumin I too am surprised and impressed to see this change in the “correct direction”, I agree that the loophole will still permit “Open Source AI” that fails to protect the four freedoms, while also making it unmanageable and unenforceable. We should be building on the MOF’s machine-readable checklist (section 7.3) so we can have a service like Github Actions verifying the claims therein (by HTTP status, hash, etc.) so it’s entirely self-service and the OSI only has to deal with disputes. This is not the same as approving one license for many projects; every project needs its own approval so self-service & automation is essential.