> In any case I believe the FSF is going to continue to campaign for the ethical freedom of these new classes of software, even if it requires new insight into what it means for them to be free, as they have done before.
And going the quotations in TFA, it seems the FSF's thinking about this is clear and nuanced, as usual:
> [T]he FSF makes a distinction between non-free and unethical in this case:
> > It may be that some nonfree ML have valid moral reasons for not releasing training data, such as personal medical data. In that case, we would describe the application as a whole as nonfree. But using it could be ethically excusable if it helps you do a specialized job that is vital for society, such as diagnosing disease or injury.
If they end up needing new terminology to describe this case, I'm sure they will devise some-- and it will be more explicit than a moniker like 'shared source'.
And going the quotations in TFA, it seems the FSF's thinking about this is clear and nuanced, as usual:
If they end up needing new terminology to describe this case, I'm sure they will devise some-- and it will be more explicit than a moniker like 'shared source'.