<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 8:39 AM Roland Turner via License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>> wrote:</div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div><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></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I see the
<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">temptation</span> to jump to this conclusion but I recommend
everybody to remember that the OSD looks easy to interpret
today only because it's 26 years old. Also, when it came
out there were hundreds of software packages already using
its principles.<div>
<div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">For AI we
don't have any of that, there isn't a body of widely-agreed-upon "free as in
freedom" work we can look at, there is no practice of
openness, therefore there are no examples we can use to
generalize a 10-points guideline to select AI systems to
ship to freedom-deserving users (like Debian did with its
Free Software Guidelines).<br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">The Open
Source AI Definition should be seen as a set of widely
agreed-upon principles, a short version of the GNU
Manifesto and the What is Free Software page applied to
AI, if you will. The companion document of the AI
Definition is the "Checklist" is still in its infancy,
tied to a specific kind of AI (GenAI) and to a specific
view of the domain (the Linux Foundation Model Openness Framework),
still has a lot of room to evolve. I expect
the Checklist to grow as the collective knowledge of what
makes an Open Source AI grows. The conversation started here <span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"></span> <a href="https://discuss.opensource.org/t/concerns-and-feedback-on-anchoring-on-the-model-openness-framework/393/">https://discuss.opensource.org/t/concerns-and-feedback-on-anchoring-on-the-model-openness-framework/393/</a> but no conclusion yet.<br></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Based on what I've seen so
far in the wild, there is a simple shortcut to identify an
Open Source AI: Did the developers release all of their
training code and the code to create the dataset, with a
detailed (peer reviewed, maybe) research paper? Are the
results of the training available for anybody to use
without limitations? If all answers are yes, I'd be fairly
certain that's an Open Source AI.<br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">If any of
these is no, you don't need lawyers: you need AI experts,
not generic ones but very specific experts of the AI being
examined, to argue if the technical details and code made
available is sufficient to use, study, share and modify. I
think the practitioners will have to show the path based
on their practice.</div></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p>
<b>Stefano</b>, is there a current documented position on the
intended approach?</p></div></blockquote><div>Not yet. <span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">If you think there needs to be one, I'd ask to contribute to the discussion above on the forum.</span><br></div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Going back on topic, here is a summary of the answers to the original questions:<br></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-size:small;margin-left:40px" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im"><span>
</span> - Do you believe that this group should be the one
to review the new documents, or should a separate group be
created for it?</span></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im">I didn't see strong arguments to create a separate group. People may require to develop new competences though. I'd also add that we may want to recruit people with skills this group may collectively lack at the moment.<br></span></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im"><br></span></div><div style="font-size:small;margin-left:40px" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im">- What new challenges do you expect to see in reviewing these licenses?</span></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Consideration of rights other than copyright, patents, trademarks, moral rights will likely be necessary (Josh). Because of this and because of how fresh the field is, discussions are going to be harder (slower) to
converge as we work through multiple new ramifications for the
first time. (Roland)<br></div></div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Some of the questions highlighted that there nomenclature is still evolving and there are no clear standards when it comes to naming and versioning conventions for these new terms. We don't even know what legal frameworks apply to some of the components.<br></span></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"> <br></div><div style="margin-left:40px"><span class="gmail-im">- Do you recommend any changes to the process in light of potential new challenges?</span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></span></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Practical considerations like</span> some kind of organized digital tracking of verifications<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> (Josh.)</span><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> Also </span>editorial changes to<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> a</span>dd references to OSAI and the OSAID; and<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> </span>solicit additional information relevant for submissions under
the adopted OSAID specifically<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> (Roland.) <br></span></div><div><br></div><div><span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Seems quite clear that the </span>list of approved documents which are not
software licenses <span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">will need to be</span>
hosted<span class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"> separately on <a href="http://opensource.org">opensource.org</a>, like</span> <a href="https://opensource.org/aiterms" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/aiterms</a> .</div><div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">Any other answers to these questions?</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><br></div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">thanks,</div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default">stef<br></div><br></div><div><div style="font-size:small" class="gmail_default"><span class="gmail-im"><br></span></div><br></div></div></div>