This is not just a tech policy. It is a "central strategic imperative" for Japan's "economic security" and the creation of a "democratic and open AI society".
opensource.jp/2025/11/10/p...

We call on the Japanese government to adopt this indivisible 3-part strategy:
- Promote OSI-Compliant Open Sourcing: Mandate that publicly funded AI models be released under the official Open Source AI Definition.
- Protect Developers:
- Open Up Training Data:

What's needed is not a one-size-fits-all template, but a "right-sized" approach. Projects should autonomously create CoC tailored to their specific scale, culture, and goals.

My conclusion: A CoC should be a simple "shield" to protect the community's core function--building software. It must not become a complex "weapon" that can be turned against the community itself.

The post explores historical turning points:
- Debian -> Ubuntu developer migration (2004)
- Lessons from Donglegate at PyCon 2013
- The standardization by Contributor Covenant
- The mass resignation of Rust mod team
- Ruby CoC is built on Matz's principle of MINASWAN

ESR called the trend "infectious social insanity," and
DHH labeled the Contributor Covenant a "Trojan horse."
Are CoC really unnecessary? I share their concerns, so I examined the issue through the lens of history and practical application in my article.

When explaining the concept of open source, I often say, “We have to accept that Open Source software can also be used in warfare.” However, I never thought I would actually learn that it was used to discuss the operational plans of the world's most powerful military.

In short, Japan needs strong leadership in the realm of open source. Of course, this isn’t limited to Open Source—it’s probably a fundamental issue for Japan as a whole.
www.linkedin.com/pulse/missin...

This article explores balancing our “freedom-first” philosophy with privacy/copyright law, Open Source community norms, and real AI/ML constraints. It also shows why some compromises on data requirements may be necessary right now.

本稿は、自由の哲学を維持しながら、プライバシー法や著作権法、我々のコミュニティの慣習、あるいはAI/ML技術の現実との実用的なバランスを取る思考過程を解説するものである。言ってしまえば、まあデータ要件における妥協は現時点で何故必要であるかを説明するものとも言える。

基本的には完全なデータの公開を求める勢力と求めない勢力の対立であるわけだが、前者はDebian的な完全な自由を求める勢力が支持し、後者は巨大ベンダーやAIコミュニティの一部の支持が強い。現在のオープンソースAIの定義はその中庸的でありながら若干データ完全性を求めない所に線を引いている。

That may be one aspect, but underlying their actions is the influence of China’s domestic laws on generative AI. The Chinese government is simultaneously pursuing two seemingly contradictory objectives: powerful censorship and global collaboration.