<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature"><br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/10/2024 6:49 AM, Roland Turner via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:abc9fc1b-5078-413e-98eb-d5976685692c@rolandturner.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/9/24 17:46, Stefano Zacchiroli
wrote:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:20240910094636.amcft2tb7ghxwwyh@upsilon.cc">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">There's another related practical question: what would be the published
*output* of OSAID-related reviews?
For traditional license review, the output is
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/licenses"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/licenses</a> , i.e., a (tagged) list of licenses,
each pointing to the full license text. For OSAID, I'm hence assuming
(but would like to have confirmation) that it will be a list of "terms
of use".
One practical problem is that terms of use are less often properly
versioned than licenses, so we will probably need to both self-host
(which we already do) and possibly self-version (which would be new).
Or maybe insist that submitters properly version terms of use as a
pre-condition for evaluation.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>This seems like a minor issue. There might literally be terms
of use (as in a data use agreement), but as multiple areas of
law are involved, multiple types of terms in multiple types of
instruments may arise. OSAID therefore just refers to "an AI
system made available under terms and in a way that grant the
freedoms to". So perhaps "terms of availability" but really just
"terms". Perhaps hosted at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://opensource.org/aiterms" moz-do-not-send="true">https://opensource.org/aiterms</a>
.<br>
</p>
<p>Anything that OSI approves will presumably be posted on the OSI
website. The likely standard is the one already used for <a
href="https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process"
moz-do-not-send="true">this list</a>:<br>
</p>
<p> </p>
<blockquote type="cite">Provide a <strong>unique name</strong>
for the license, preferably including the version number.</blockquote>
<p>I suspect that in pretty short order, someone who gets a
version of AI system terms with a unique name approved by OSI,
and then publishes modified terms under the same name and
claiming OSI approval will receive a polite letter from OSI.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
The OSI will be reviewing and documenting its approval of legal
terms that are meant for use with AI systems. I wouldn't get hung up
on what they're called; "terms of use" is one thing they're called
but at the end of the day they are all legal agreements imposed on
the use of the component - or maybe not, if the mechanism for making
them binding has failed. <br>
<br>
One of the standards for the current license approval process is
that the document must be reusable by others. I expect that will be
required here, so that some standardization of nomenclature evolves.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek <br>
Chair, Licensing Committee <br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
</body>
</html>