[godelski]

  > "Reproducible build" is a term used to refer to getting an exact binary match out of a build.

I'm not sure what makes you think I failed to understand this. Allow me to quote myself

  >> It is fair to say that the "aim" isn't about reproducible software, but it is a direct consequence of the software being open source.

But also, my entire point is not really about the reproducible build aspect. It is that if we're going to draw an analogy then the training and data IS the source. At worst, we'd say it is the build instructions.

But maybe I don't understand Open Source. Is it still Open Source if I provide the source code, an Apache License, but the code is in my own custom language (for fun, let's say it reads like brainfuck) and I have no released the compiler? Maybe some people would call this Open Source, but I imagine it would ruffle a lot of feathers. Is there really a meaningful difference between that an a binary? If it does fit "the letter of the law" it most certainly does not fit "spirit of the law". It is the spirit of the law that matters, because it is the whole fucking point.