<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/9/24 12:28, Pamela Chestek wrote:</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix"><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:88538684-2d3e-471b-a129-863de9a9bfbf@opensource.org">
<p>The concept (as I see it, and I may be completely wrong) is
that the documents submitted might be for entire systems or they
might be for just a single component, say, models. The review
will be to make sure that the user will have all the rights
guaranteed by the OSAID for whatever components, or systems, the
legal terms might be applied to. <br>
</p>
<p>We understand that there might be discrete and separate terms
for the various components in a system. The OSI will not be
evaluating systems as a whole to make sure that every component
has approved terms - that's what a compliance program would do,
which we are not doing. As with open source software, it will be
up to the community, with support from OSI, to identify false
claims that an AI system is open source when it is not, whether
it's because some component is missing a necessary grant of
rights or because the grant does not assure all the freedoms
required.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>There seems to me to be a serious batteries-not-included problem
with this approach. I do get the need to evaluate terms more
broadly than copyright-license terms[1] alone[2], but what you're
describing appears to be abdicating an obvious role for OSI
completely:</p>
<ul>
<li>Yes, we obviously can't become a certification body for every
OS AI system in the world. Scope, resourcing at every level,
assumptions about what F/OSS is about, etc., would all be
invalidated by this approach.</li>
<li>But limiting review and approval merely to component terms
destroys the meaning of OSI-approval for OSAID (because there
would be no such thing), in that it is by no means certain that
the combination of a set of compliant component terms will
automatically yield a compliant whole[3].</li>
</ul>
<p>Naturally the few hundred largest systems will engage teams of
lawyers to tailor their terms — particularly at this early stage
of development — and these organisations are free to seek OSI
approval for their specific constellation of terms should they
wish to, but leaving the next million projects in the lurch,
having to cobble their own system terms together seems like a
serious problem. Yes, OSI can't and doesn't offer legal advice,
but the availability of a body of "likely reasonable" approved
terms for selection at the very beginning of a small project has
been a very important benefit of OSI's approval process (and the
reason for a published list of approved licenses, and for the
non-proliferation work, etc.). I'd suggest that it would be
serious own-goal for OSI to fail to provide analogous
whole-system-terms approvals for the OSAID.<br>
<br>
<b>Stefano</b>, is there a current documented position on the
intended approach?</p>
<p>- Roland</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>1: "distribution terms" in the OSD</p>
<p>2: e.g. I mentioned Data Transfer Agreements (DTAs) earlier.</p>
<p>3: We could in principle make certain that this was the case by
reviewing not only each license, but also the combinatorial
closure of all licenses as applied in all possible combinations to
AI systems but, erm, this would likely be an even bigger problem.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
</body>
</html>