<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/10/2024 2:38 AM, Roland Turner via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:a897d4df-d160-4c2f-b72a-8dc0c43430fb@rolandturner.com">
<ul>
<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.</p>
</blockquote>
You've identified one reason why the OSI will not be doing this
work. "Engage teams of lawyers" -- yes, that's what it will take to
develop the necessary agreement or agreements and the OSI does not
have access to teams of lawyers, or at least not ones that have the
capacity to undertake this work as volunteers.<br>
<br>
A second reason is that it is going to take some creativity to
create a document or documents that ensure the necessary freedoms
are granted. I don't know anyone who has figured it out yet,
although a lot of people are thinking about it. We don't even all
agree on what rights mechanisms might apply to models in particular,
and data to a lesser degree. Copyleft was a brilliant insight; there
may be an equally brilliant insight that figures out how to manage
this much more difficult area. This area needs room to develop,
which may not happen if the OSI dictates what it believes the
correct approach is, including whether that is a single license for
all components or separate licenses for different components. <br>
<br>
A third reason is that there are already licensing schemes in use.
We don't want to create greater barriers to entry by forcing someone
to adopt our standard when theirs might be perfectly fine with a
tweak or two.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <b>Stefano</b>, is there a current
documented position on the intended approach?</blockquote>
<br>
No, there is not. <br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek <br>
Chair, Licensing Committee <br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
</body>
</html>