[License-review] Withdrawal License Review, Vol 117, Issue 5

Fri Apr 21 07:28:21 UTC 2023

Dear Stefano and all,

Thanks for replying and having this conversation, it gave me a lot of useful insights.
I am withdrawing this request, and as highlighted also from others, I will take this offline and re-iterate it for improvements and re-submission.

Thanks again,
Cheers,

Emanuele

> On 21 Apr 2023, at 00:09, license-review-request at lists.opensource.org wrote:
> 
> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
> 	license-review at lists.opensource.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. Re: License-review Digest, Vol 117, Issue 2 (Stefano Maffulli)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 20 Apr 2023 15:08:41 -0700
> From: Stefano Maffulli <stefano at opensource.org>
> To: License submissions for OSI review
> 	<license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-review] License-review Digest, Vol 117, Issue 2
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAH=j4iQmVe1vqm+ADuvJ9PszQH1kFE5TqV=5Q-w5WbGycXoK2w at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> Emanuele,
> 
> Please move this conversation to license-discuss
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
> because at this point the conversation is off-topic for this group.
> 
> And, a general suggestion, if you reply to a Digest, change the subject and
> remove the text of the digest.
> 
> Thanks,
> Stef
> 
> 
> On Thu, Apr 20, 2023 at 3:02?PM Emanuele D. <deboni.emanuele at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> Hello there,
>> 
>> First of all thanks for replying, Your replies are giving me a lot of
>> useful knowledge
>> and insights on how to eventually work on this failing attempt. I will
>> answer as following:
>> 
>> ???
>> 
>> Dear* @mirabilos,*
>> 
>> I call absolute, utter BULLSHIT on this.
>> 
>> 
>> The idea, whether possible, as explained, is to restrict AI entities
>> (operating autonomous agent) not the AI source code nor the AI System.
>> Generally speaking:
>> 1) a open source developer would be able to build (according to the
>> relative OS license) any AI source code, model or system. These are tools
>> of the open source community, and they fall under the OSD.
>> 2) an AI Entity, born by that tool (without entering in ethics), and
>> generally speaking more or less autonomous, it?s not a human developer nor
>> a tool. Therefore there should be more attention from a legal point of view.
>> 
>> The non-deterministic nature is given by the probabilistic pattern that
>> powers machine learning, as you might know, unrelated to the deterministic
>> nature of the computers, *this is a fact*.
>> It?s like saying that since we know your DNA, we can tell what you are
>> going to do in a sunny day of June (of course this is a exaggeration, but I
>> hope you get the point).
>> Talking, for example, about GPT models, if you ask ?How much is the result
>> of 5 * 3?? for three times, it will give you three different answers *more
>> or less* about the fact that the result it 15.
>> 
>> There are already many resources on it, I will give you one among many,
>> that you might already know:
>> -
>> https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/v-word-challenge-ai-determinism-part-2-charles-chen/
>> 
>> 
>> At the moment, the 5 * 3 question might look irrelevant as covered case,
>> it looks like conventional software. But let?s take a look at the same
>> exact GPT model, applied in a different way, in this experiment (already
>> usable now):
>> - https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT
>> 
>> The problem here is that if you ask the AI to go from X to Z, you don?t
>> know what the exact steps will be in the middle [X ?> unknown ?> unknown(n)
>> ?>  Z(ish)], and that should raise a flag for the community.
>> Because, even if you can reliably bet on a Z(ish) result, you can?t
>> predict it with 100% of probability, and you can?t tell what will be done
>> precisely in order to get there.
>> 
>> In my opinion. this brings a problem of accountability and the OSD lacks
>> to identify this distinction.
>> Who will be accountable for any legal issue? Also here many resources
>> start to popup, for example https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.11834.pdf.
>> 
>> ???
>> 
>> Dear Carlo Pina,
>> 
>> I must confess I have many troubles with your "license", starting from the
>> fact that it is not a license, but a restriction applied on the top of a
>> license. As the name suggests, the main intent of this document is to
>> impose a restriction on certain uses, users and fields of endeavour: for
>> that it is directly against #5 and #6, in my reading. That alone
>> disqualifies the "license". Have you spent time considering the OSD before
>> applying for approval, in the face of this striking problem, without even
>> trying to address it with a convincing rationale?
>> 
>> 
>> Yes, like I mentioned in the text, point 5 and 6 are referring to
>> ?persons? not AI autonomous agents, which shouldn?t be falling in neither
>> definition of software and persons.
>> However, you are very right, this is my limitation and lack of legal
>> knowledge about the difference between *license* and *restriction.* I
>> will definitely ask for a legal advice on this.
>> 
>> Frankly, and this is perhaps the most fatal flow, I am not buying the very
>> concept of "let's keep open source from AI generators" at all.
>> 
>> 
>> Please, consider the fact, as before mentioned, that these are not just
>> ?generators?.
>> 
>> Additionally, you claim that the SPDX (not SPIDX) identifier for your
>> "license" is RAIL, but I see no trace of it in the official list of
>> licenses. In order to claim it's an SPDX id, you should ask for it in the
>> first place and since it is basically a first-come-first-served basis,
>> using it before having secured it is not a good idea.
>> 
>> 
>> Oh! I didn?t know about this. I thought this was assigned after an
>> eventual approval, and that should be ask in the submission before.
>> 
>> I urge you to reconsider your submission -- which I think should be
>> outright rejected without much further ado -- and the very underlying
>> purpose. And to consider it in the light of the legislative initiatives
>> which -- unlike open source licensing -- have some chances to have an
>> impact on the good handling of AI.
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks for the advice. I will try to do my part.
>> 
>> ???
>> 
>> Dear Simon,
>> 
>> Thanks for the advice as well.
>> 
>> ???
>> 
>> Best regards.
>> 
>> 
>> On 18 Apr 2023, at 14:00, license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Send License-review mailing list submissions to
>> license-review at lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> 
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> license-review-request at lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> license-review-owner at lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."
>> 
>> 
>> Today's Topics:
>> 
>>  1. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License
>>     (RAIL) (Thorsten Glaser)
>>  2. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License
>>     (RAIL) (Carlo Piana)
>>  3. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License
>>     (RAIL) (Simon Phipps)
>> 
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:54:56 +0000 (UTC)
>> From: Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de>
>> To: License submissions for OSI review
>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial
>> Intelligence License (RAIL)
>> Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.2304180945300.10778 at herc.mirbsd.org>
>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8
>> 
>> Emanuele D. dixit:
>> 
>> AI entities can learn, adapt, and perform complex tasks *autonomously*
>> and with *non-deterministic* patterns.
>> 
>> 
>> I call absolute, utter BULLSHIT on this.
>> 
>> AI is software that runs on deterministic computers, PRNG input
>> notwithstanding. It?s equivalent to a compiler, and its output
>> is not ?generated? (it wouldn?t need any ?training data? if it
>> were so) but a derivative of its input (training data, and to a
>> small amount prompt and possibly PRNG), in a deterministic way.
>> 
>> So-called ?AI? cannot be the subject of copyright because it?s
>> not a juristic entity. (AFAIR this was already confirmed in
>> court: there can be no copyright claims on AI output.)
>> Therefore, any copyright-relevant issues on AI is bound to its
>> users as it?s just a tool. I maintain that in almost all cases,
>> and generally enough to assume this true unless proven otherwise
>> (via an auditable code and ?training data? trail) its output is
>> n?n-distributable because that violates the licence on the input.
>> (It has been proven that the input can even be recovered in large
>> enough amounts to be recognisable, about ? of an image complete
>> with watermarks for example.)
>> 
>> I believe we don?t need any specific licences for this, and that
>> the existing ones are not only sufficient (they specify conditions
>> on creating derivative works and ?conveying? them) but also the
>> maximum protection possible (anything further would be a restriction
>> on use (by the legal entity operating the AI software / ?compiler?)
>> which is not free). I did add an interpretation on the MirOS Licence
>> webpage explaining this; use of ?AI? where the input is homogenously
>> licenced and all copyright and licence statements are retained as
>> required, if it existed, would be legal.
>> 
>> bye,
>> //mirabilos
>> --
>> I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
>> when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy
>> them.
>> If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
>> existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:55:44 +0200 (CEST)
>> From: Carlo Piana <osi-review at piana.eu>
>> To: License submissions for OSI review
>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial
>> Intelligence License (RAIL)
>> Message-ID:
>> <507567272.10021936.1681815344637.JavaMail.zimbra at piana.eu>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>> 
>> Dear Emanuele,
>> 
>> I must confess I have many troubles with your "license", starting from the
>> fact that it is not a license, but a restriction applied on the top of a
>> license. As the name suggests, the main intent of this document is to
>> impose a restriction on certain uses, users and fields of endeavour: for
>> that it is directly against #5 and #6, in my reading. That alone
>> disqualifies the "license". Have you spent time considering the OSD before
>> applying for approval, in the face of this striking problem, without even
>> trying to address it with a convincing rationale?
>> 
>> I highlight the relevant language in ?3:
>> 
>> The Restricted Artificial Intelligence License, or simply RAIL, **is a
>> license extension **
>> designed to **restrict** the [permission to] use, copy, modify, merge,
>> publish, distribute, sublicense of
>> software under an existing open source license, for AI entities.
>> 
>> 
>> There are many other shortcomings that appear abundantly evident. The
>> language is quirky, it is very difficult to understand what is the legal
>> implication of applying it to any license (eg. what happens to the GPLv3
>> under section 7?), I reckon it has not been vetted by a lawyer. The fact
>> that you call it a license, when a license is in its essence a permission
>> and you are proposing something that adds a restriction to a permission,
>> does not give reassurances in the fact that you understood what is the
>> subject matter of "license approval":
>> 
>> Additionally, you claim that the SPDX (not SPIDX) identifier for your
>> "license" is RAIL, but I see no trace of it in the official list of
>> licenses. In order to claim it's an SPDX id, you should ask for it in the
>> first place and since it is basically a first-come-first-served basis,
>> using it before having secured it is not a good idea.
>> 
>> Frankly, and this is perhaps the most fatal flow, I am not buying the very
>> concept of "let's keep open source from AI generators" at all.
>> 
>> I urge you to reconsider your submission -- which I think should be
>> outright rejected without much further ado -- and the very underlying
>> purpose. And to consider it in the light of the legislative initiatives
>> which -- unlike open source licensing -- have some chances to have an
>> impact on the good handling of AI.
>> 
>> I'm replying as a FOSS licensing expert, not as member of the Board of
>> OSI. This reply is therefore not part of a formal process within OSI.
>> 
>> With best regards,
>> 
>> Carlo Piana
>> 
>> 
>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>> 
>> Da: "Emanuele D." <deboni.emanuele at gmail.com>
>> A: "license-review at lists.opensource.org" <
>> license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>> Inviato: Luned?, 17 aprile 2023 17:33:12
>> Oggetto: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence
>> License (RAIL)
>> 
>> 
>> Dear Board,
>> 
>> 
>> I hope you are well and safe. My name Is Emanuele De Boni, I am a
>> philologist by
>> academic education turned into software engineer. My Master?s thesis was
>> around
>> open source licenses (2012) and since then I?ve been part (passively) of
>> the
>> community.
>> 
>> 
>> I recently reflected about the importance of a clear distinction between
>> humans
>> and AI entities, to push the Open Source Initiative forward and protect the
>> drive to innovation, collaboration and creativity that resulted from its
>> principles.
>> 
>> 
>> As a specialised linguistic, I would like here to submit at your attention
>> the
>> attached license draft, containing already the supporting data reminded
>> here [
>> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval |
>> https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval ] . I give also,
>> my
>> availability to call and discuss it together, I am currently located in
>> Amsterdam Time Zone (CEST).
>> 
>> 
>> I attached 3 textual file types: .txt, .md, .pdf.
>> 
>> 
>> Looking forward,
>> Kind Regards.
>> 
>> 
>> Emanuele De Boni
>> +31657175374 (active on WhatsApp and Telegram)
>> [ https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/ |
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/ ]
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily
>> those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source
>> Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>> 
>> 
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Message: 3
>> Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:21:52 +0100
>> From: Simon Phipps <simon at webmink.com>
>> To: License submissions for OSI review
>> <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
>> Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial
>> Intelligence License (RAIL)
>> Message-ID:
>> <CAA4ffp_Ejqh6tuxVo2ZWrk5e+icVufL6pDgL-iqOhzhawXHusA at mail.gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>> 
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I do not believe this submission represents a valid license, since it is a
>> manifesto for an unspecified text intended to be applied to modify
>> unspecified open source licenses. Since we do not have the full text of any
>> combination to consider for approval, I believe this submission should be
>> automatically rejected.
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Simon
>> (in a personal capacity)
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:32?AM Emanuele D. <deboni.emanuele at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Dear Board,
>> 
>> I hope you are well and safe. My name Is Emanuele De Boni, I am a
>> philologist by academic education turned into software engineer. My
>> Master?s thesis was around open source licenses (2012) and since then I?ve
>> been part (passively) of the community.
>> 
>> I recently reflected about the importance of a clear distinction between
>> humans and AI entities, to push the Open Source Initiative forward and
>> protect the drive to innovation, collaboration and creativity that resulted
>> from its principles.
>> 
>> As a specialised linguistic, I would like here to submit at your attention
>> the attached license draft, containing already the supporting data reminded
>> here https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval. I give
>> also, my availability to call and discuss it together, I am currently
>> located in Amsterdam Time Zone (CEST).
>> 
>> I attached 3 textual file types: .txt, .md, .pdf.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Looking forward,
>> Kind Regards.
>> 
>> Emanuele De Boni
>> +31657175374 (active on WhatsApp and Telegram)
>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>> 
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> 
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> *Simon Phipps*
>> *Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027
>> *Signal/Telegram/Mobile*:  +44 774 776 2816
>> -------------- next part --------------
>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
>> URL: <
>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230418/96476b1c/attachment-0001.html
>>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> Subject: Digest Footer
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> 
>> ------------------------------
>> 
>> End of License-review Digest, Vol 117, Issue 2
>> **********************************************
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
>> necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the
>> Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>> 
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>> 
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230420/5d2480a1/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of License-review Digest, Vol 117, Issue 5
> **********************************************