Everything is open-source if you know assembler
Weights are basically algorithm. It is not even obfuscated. Companies successfully produce derivative works from them, what is the problem?
One does not require git history for any Foss project, the exact way the code was produced IA not the requirement, it is the reproducibility that matters.
Rutracker used to have such rule many years ago but it is long gone.
Hello from XMPP. Now you understand how we felt.
The problem is that this value can be compared to a list of "allowed" values. Therefore it opens the gate to creating software that would require only certain "whitelisted" systems to run it. Such list can be easily updated automatically once those "whitelisted" systems update. Therefore an argument "updates would break it" do not actually work.
This is precisely how play integrity works on android. And Poettering intensions do not matter much. His system can be used like that and therefore it will be used like that.
That is kinda what google does as well. It calculates checksums of certain system components and compares it to a checksum in database.
What you are describing is usually called antivirus. But they call their system "integrity". That word is used for other things in this context.
I do not understand where does your optimism come from? In what little that we do know they describe the exact same system using the exact same wording as google. If they mean some other thing then they should spend a couple of hours and describe how is it different. And before that the worst should be assumed. It is to dangerous to treat it in any other way.
I do not care if it is connected to proprietary ecosystem or not. The freedom to decide what software am I allowed to run on my PC is important for me though. Any system that limits that freedom is evil by definition.
Voluntary for developer? Sure. Voluntary for the user who can't run software because it requires this shit? Not so sure.
The language used speaks for itself. We already know what "integrity" means in this context.
the company wants Linux systems to be built so their correctness can be explicitly defined and continuously verified.
This does not seem vague to me. It explicitly states what they are creating.
Well, we have a systemd creator and Microsoft employees here...
They want to create a mechanism for software to determine on which system it allows a user to run itself. Google "play integrity" on android and google's proposal for web integrity API.
Even AI developers themselves cannot train AI in the same way as one compiles a program. Storing all the necessary data is just not feasible. To achieve results comparable to modern flagship models, one needs to obtain data in real time, use large amounts of generated data that is deleted after single use. And the training algorithm itself is not deterministic.
And I still fail to see how this is any different from requiring a git commit history. There is an algorithm present - that's it. It has no other forms in which it can be presented.