The board is incorrect. The OSI has corrupted the term Open Source by allowing those who want to propagate AIs that launder Open Source and proprietary code/data alike to do so under the banner of "Open Source". In particular, the so-called "Open Source AI" definition permits calling an AI "Open Source" even if it was trained on Open Source code or data and the license of its weights and outputs completely ignores the license of its training data.
This is an attempt to normalize the unacceptable practice of letting AI launder away the licenses of its training data, and to continue the practices of establishing "facts on the ground" that augur towards being able to continue ignoring the licenses of training data. The flagrant behavior of current AI training should not be allowed to continue, and should not be treated as a valid negotiating position from which to "compromise". Do not normalize the violation of Open Source licenses.
This is an attempt to normalize the unacceptable practice of letting AI launder away the licenses of its training data, and to continue the practices of establishing "facts on the ground" that augur towards being able to continue ignoring the licenses of training data. The flagrant behavior of current AI training should not be allowed to continue, and should not be treated as a valid negotiating position from which to "compromise". Do not normalize the violation of Open Source licenses.
דגל שכור 🏴 
@thufie @josh @osi yes and no.
The licence may very well point out that the result of a certain process involving an algorithmic transformation and input that is a work under the licence is covered by the licence as well (some of the FSF’s licences certainly do so, and they are qualified and certified). (see) And it may very well condemn distribution of the output of such a process as a licence violation.