<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">Hello there,<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">First of all thanks for replying, Your replies are giving me a lot of useful knowledge </div><div class="">and insights on how to eventually work on this failing attempt. I will answer as following:</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">——— </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Dear<b class=""> @mirabilos,</b></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I call absolute, utter BULLSHIT on this.</blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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:</div><div class="">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.</div><div class="">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.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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, <b class="">this is a fact</b>. </div><div class="">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).</div><div class="">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 <b class="">more or less</b> about the fact that the result it 15.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">There are already many resources on it, I will give you one among many, that you might already know:</div><div class="">- <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/v-word-challenge-ai-determinism-part-2-charles-chen/" class="">https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/v-word-challenge-ai-determinism-part-2-charles-chen/</a> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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):</div><div class="">- <a href="https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT" class="">https://github.com/Significant-Gravitas/Auto-GPT</a> </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In my opinion. this brings a problem of accountability and the OSD lacks to identify this distinction.</div><div class="">Who will be accountable for any legal issue? Also here many resources start to popup, for example <a href="https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.11834.pdf" class="">https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.11834.pdf</a>.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">———</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Dear Carlo Pina,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">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? <br class=""></blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">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.</div><div class="">However, you are very right, this is my limitation and lack of legal knowledge about the difference between <b class="">license</b> and <b class="">restriction.</b> I will definitely ask for a legal advice on this.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">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. </blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">Please, consider the fact, as before mentioned, that these are not just “generators”.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">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. </blockquote></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">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. </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">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. </blockquote><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for the advice. I will try to do my part.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">——— </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Dear Simon,</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks for the advice as well.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">——— </div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);" class="">Best regards.</div></div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On 18 Apr 2023, at 14:00, <a href="mailto:license-review-request@lists.opensource.org" class="">license-review-request@lists.opensource.org</a> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div class="">Send License-review mailing list submissions to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" class="">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br class=""><br class="">To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org<br class=""><br class="">or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>license-review-request@lists.opensource.org<br class=""><br class="">You can reach the person managing the list at<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>license-review-owner@lists.opensource.org<br class=""><br class="">When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br class="">than "Re: Contents of License-review digest..."<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Today's Topics:<br class=""><br class=""> 1. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License<br class=""> (RAIL) (Thorsten Glaser)<br class=""> 2. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License<br class=""> (RAIL) (Carlo Piana)<br class=""> 3. Re: Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License<br class=""> (RAIL) (Simon Phipps)<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">----------------------------------------------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 1<br class="">Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 09:54:56 +0000 (UTC)<br class="">From: Thorsten Glaser <tg@mirbsd.de><br class="">To: License submissions for OSI review<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><license-review@lists.opensource.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Intelligence License (RAIL)<br class="">Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.2304180945300.10778@herc.mirbsd.org><br class="">Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8<br class=""><br class="">Emanuele D. dixit:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">AI entities can learn, adapt, and perform complex tasks *autonomously*<br class="">and with *non-deterministic* patterns.<br class=""></blockquote><br class="">I call absolute, utter BULLSHIT on this.<br class=""><br class="">AI is software that runs on deterministic computers, PRNG input<br class="">notwithstanding. It?s equivalent to a compiler, and its output<br class="">is not ?generated? (it wouldn?t need any ?training data? if it<br class="">were so) but a derivative of its input (training data, and to a<br class="">small amount prompt and possibly PRNG), in a deterministic way.<br class=""><br class="">So-called ?AI? cannot be the subject of copyright because it?s<br class="">not a juristic entity. (AFAIR this was already confirmed in<br class="">court: there can be no copyright claims on AI output.)<br class="">Therefore, any copyright-relevant issues on AI is bound to its<br class="">users as it?s just a tool. I maintain that in almost all cases,<br class="">and generally enough to assume this true unless proven otherwise<br class="">(via an auditable code and ?training data? trail) its output is<br class="">n?n-distributable because that violates the licence on the input.<br class="">(It has been proven that the input can even be recovered in large<br class="">enough amounts to be recognisable, about ? of an image complete<br class="">with watermarks for example.)<br class=""><br class="">I believe we don?t need any specific licences for this, and that<br class="">the existing ones are not only sufficient (they specify conditions<br class="">on creating derivative works and ?conveying? them) but also the<br class="">maximum protection possible (anything further would be a restriction<br class="">on use (by the legal entity operating the AI software / ?compiler?)<br class="">which is not free). I did add an interpretation on the MirOS Licence<br class="">webpage explaining this; use of ?AI? where the input is homogenously<br class="">licenced and all copyright and licence statements are retained as<br class="">required, if it existed, would be legal.<br class=""><br class="">bye,<br class="">//mirabilos<br class="">-- <br class="">I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it<br class="">when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.<br class="">If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny<br class="">existence.<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>-- Coywolf Qi Hunt<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 2<br class="">Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:55:44 +0200 (CEST)<br class="">From: Carlo Piana <osi-review@piana.eu><br class="">To: License submissions for OSI review<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><license-review@lists.opensource.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Intelligence License (RAIL)<br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><507567272.10021936.1681815344637.JavaMail.zimbra@piana.eu><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8<br class=""><br class="">Dear Emanuele, <br class=""><br class="">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? <br class=""><br class="">I highlight the relevant language in ?3: <br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">The Restricted Artificial Intelligence License, or simply RAIL, **is a license extension ** <br class="">designed to **restrict** the [permission to] use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense of <br class="">software under an existing open source license, for AI entities. <br class=""></blockquote><br class="">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": <br class=""><br class="">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. <br class=""><br class="">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. <br class=""><br class="">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. <br class=""><br class="">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.<br class=""><br class="">With best regards, <br class=""><br class="">Carlo Piana<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">----- Messaggio originale -----<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Da: "Emanuele D." <deboni.emanuele@gmail.com><br class="">A: "license-review@lists.opensource.org" <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br class="">Inviato: Luned?, 17 aprile 2023 17:33:12<br class="">Oggetto: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial Intelligence License (RAIL)<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Dear Board,<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I hope you are well and safe. My name Is Emanuele De Boni, I am a philologist by<br class="">academic education turned into software engineer. My Master?s thesis was around<br class="">open source licenses (2012) and since then I?ve been part (passively) of the<br class="">community.<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I recently reflected about the importance of a clear distinction between humans<br class="">and AI entities, to push the Open Source Initiative forward and protect the<br class="">drive to innovation, collaboration and creativity that resulted from its<br class="">principles.<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">As a specialised linguistic, I would like here to submit at your attention the<br class="">attached license draft, containing already the supporting data reminded here [<br class="">https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval |<br class="">https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval ] . I give also, my<br class="">availability to call and discuss it together, I am currently located in<br class="">Amsterdam Time Zone (CEST).<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">I attached 3 textual file types: .txt, .md, .pdf.<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Looking forward,<br class="">Kind Regards.<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Emanuele De Boni<br class="">+31657175374 (active on WhatsApp and Telegram)<br class="">[ https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/ |<br class="">https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/ ]<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily<br class="">those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source<br class="">Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">License-review mailing list<br class="">License-review@lists.opensource.org<br class="">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org<br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Message: 3<br class="">Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2023 12:21:52 +0100<br class="">From: Simon Phipps <simon@webmink.com><br class="">To: License submissions for OSI review<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><license-review@lists.opensource.org><br class="">Subject: Re: [License-review] Approval - Restricted Artificial<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Intelligence License (RAIL)<br class="">Message-ID:<br class=""><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><CAA4ffp_Ejqh6tuxVo2ZWrk5e+icVufL6pDgL-iqOhzhawXHusA@mail.gmail.com><br class="">Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br class=""><br class="">Hi all,<br class=""><br class="">I do not believe this submission represents a valid license, since it is a<br class="">manifesto for an unspecified text intended to be applied to modify<br class="">unspecified open source licenses. Since we do not have the full text of any<br class="">combination to consider for approval, I believe this submission should be<br class="">automatically rejected.<br class=""><br class="">Best regards,<br class=""><br class="">Simon<br class="">(in a personal capacity)<br class=""><br class="">On Tue, Apr 18, 2023 at 10:32?AM Emanuele D. <deboni.emanuele@gmail.com><br class="">wrote:<br class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="">Dear Board,<br class=""><br class="">I hope you are well and safe. My name Is Emanuele De Boni, I am a<br class="">philologist by academic education turned into software engineer. My<br class="">Master?s thesis was around open source licenses (2012) and since then I?ve<br class="">been part (passively) of the community.<br class=""><br class="">I recently reflected about the importance of a clear distinction between<br class="">humans and AI entities, to push the Open Source Initiative forward and<br class="">protect the drive to innovation, collaboration and creativity that resulted<br class="">from its principles.<br class=""><br class="">As a specialised linguistic, I would like here to submit at your attention<br class="">the attached license draft, containing already the supporting data reminded<br class="">here https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/#approval. I give<br class="">also, my availability to call and discuss it together, I am currently<br class="">located in Amsterdam Time Zone (CEST).<br class=""><br class="">I attached 3 textual file types: .txt, .md, .pdf.<br class=""><br class=""><br class=""><br class="">Looking forward,<br class="">Kind Regards.<br class=""><br class="">Emanuele De Boni<br class="">+31657175374 (active on WhatsApp and Telegram)<br class="">https://www.linkedin.com/in/emanueledeboni/<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not<br class="">necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the<br class="">Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.<br class=""><br class="">License-review mailing list<br class="">License-review@lists.opensource.org<br class=""><br class="">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org<br class=""><br class=""></blockquote><br class=""><br class="">-- <br class="">*Simon Phipps*<br class="">*Office:* +1 (415) 683-7660 *or* +44 (238) 098 7027<br class="">*Signal/Telegram/Mobile*: +44 774 776 2816<br class="">-------------- next part --------------<br class="">An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br class="">URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20230418/96476b1c/attachment-0001.html><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">Subject: Digest Footer<br class=""><br class="">_______________________________________________<br class="">License-review mailing list<br class="">License-review@lists.opensource.org<br class="">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org<br class=""><br class=""><br class="">------------------------------<br class=""><br class="">End of License-review Digest, Vol 117, Issue 2<br class="">**********************************************<br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>