Open Source AI Definition – Weekly update April 29

New draft of the Open Source AI Definition v.0.0.8 is live!

• The draft is ready for feedback. 
• The changelog: 
  • incorporated feedback from legal review in Gothenburg and 0.0.7
    • transformed Data transparency to Data information following feedback from the
    • separated the Out of scope section to a FAQ document 18
    • added mention of frictionless in the preamble
    • moved the definition of preferred form to make modifications to ML above the checklist
  • updated language to follow the latest version of the Model Openness Framework
  • added the legal requirements for optional components
  • the first incarnation of the FAQ added
• The next steps now include:
  • Widen the call for reviewers in the next couple of weeks
  • Test the Definition with more AI systems (Olmo, Phy, Mistral, etc)
  • Run a review workshop at PyCon US

Initial reactions 

• Question regarding why under “Preferred form to make modifications to machine-learning systems” and “model”, mention of model weights has been removed. 

Vote on how to describe the acceptable terms to receive documentation?

• As part of the next steps, we are continuing to review legal documents from different AI systems to test our definition. Should we describe the terms listed on the 0.0.8 draft under “checklist to evaluate machine learning systems”, should we consider them OSD Compliant or OSD Compatible?
  • This matters as it has different implications for documentation for the components in the class of Data transparency: There is no formal definition of “open documentation” and the OSI hasn’t reviewed licenses used for documentation.
• A user has concerns with both, stating that:
  • OSD-compliant means that documentation need to be under a license that fulfils all ten OSD criteria, and many of those are quite software-specific. This could be tricky, there is a reason why OSI hasn’t approved (m)any non-software licenses thus far.in its meaning. Many proprietary licenses are compatible with many (non-copyleft) OSD-compliant licenses, that It can lose its meaning.
• Maffulli replies stating that:
  • The main difference he sees lie in their perceived legal strictness, where “Compatible suggests a lightweight review that anyone can do”
  • He further suggests that OSI could create a special category of licenses for documentation only. When stating that documentation of Open Source AI needs to be available with OSD-compliant terms, do we need to create a special category of OSI Approved Licenses for documentation?
  • He further adds that he reads “compliant”, not in terms of existing licenes but rather in terms of the checklist
• Regarding creating a “special category of license for documentation only, a user adds:
  • “We need that the documentation is free from restrictions that would limits its circulation, including by requiring seeking additional permission or requiring royalties or requiring audited distribution or the likes.” and its scope therefore is quite limited.

FAQ document has been created 

• An FAQ needs to be written to address concerns heard often during the drafting process. The document is a work in progress and is waiting for contributions.

See if OSI is coming near you to host a workshop

• The Open Source AI Definition is going on tour to get a wide array of reviews. This is important to ensure through reviews and secure global significance. Check the dates of the roadshow.