The missions of OSI and OFAI are well-aligned; at the heart of OFAI is a commitment to ensuring that AI development serves the public interest. With the support of renowned partners like Omidyar Network, NobleReach Foundation, and internal CMU funding, OFAI is positioned to serve as a pivotal platform for shaping AI strategies and policies that prioritize safety, privacy, and equity.

The OSI is proud to be part of this project. Stefano Mafulli and Deb Bryant from the OSI will participate in OFAI, integrating their efforts toward a standard Open Source AI Definition through a collaborative process involving stakeholders from the Open Source community, industry, and academia as well as their contributions to public policy.  

A collective effort

The success of OFAI hinges on the diverse expertise it convenes. Leading this initiative is Sayeed Choudhury, Associate Dean for Digital Infrastructure at CMU and a member of the OSI Board. Alongside him, a team of CMU faculty members and external advisors will contribute knowledge in ethics, computational technologies, and inclusive AI research. 

Notable participants like Michele Jawando from Omidyar Network and Arun Gupta from NobleReach Foundation have emphasized the importance of Open Source AI in driving innovation and inclusivity as well as the need for a human-centered, trust-based approach to AI development.

OFAI’s ambitious goals

OFAI aims to influence AI policy by coordinating research and policy objectives and advocating for transparent and inclusive AI development. The initiative will focus on five key areas: 

• Research
• Technical prototypes
• Policy recommendations
• Community engagement
• Talent for service

Deb Bryant will lead Community Engagement, building in part upon the broad community of interest gathered through the public process of OSI’s Defining Open Source AI.

One of OFAI’s foundational projects is the creation of an “Openness in AI” framework, which seeks to make AI development more transparent and inclusive. This framework will serve as a vital resource for policymakers, researchers, and the broader community.

Looking ahead

With the OSI set to deliver a stable version of the Open Source AI Definition at All Things Open in October, the launch of OFAI magnifies the importance of this work to bring together diverse stakeholders to ensure AI technologies align with societal values and public interests.

In our response, OSI explores the overarching societal benefits of open models, drawing from the extensive adoption and accomplishments of the open source software development model. We underscore the pivotal role played by the formulation of clearly defined terms and the Open Source Definition, initiated some twenty-five years ago, which has been instrumental in the success of this model. Additionally, we urge the NTIA to take into account ongoing efforts, including the Defining Open Source AI project currently underway with a diverse array of stakeholders under OSI’s stewardship.

In parallel to this initiative, OSI recently collaborated with the Mozilla Foundation, the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT), and various other Civil Society organizations to co-sign a joint letter addressed to Secretary Gina Raimondo of the Department of Commerce. This letter advocates for the transparency and openness of AI, highlighting its societal benefits.

In February OSI joined other non-profits working in the public interest to share comments, concerns and encouragement in a Listening Session with NTIA staff, a precursor to the RFC which was released in February and closed on March 27, 2024. 

Through these concerted efforts, OSI remains committed to fostering a collaborative environment that promotes transparency, accessibility, and responsible innovation in AI for the betterment of society. We eagerly anticipate further dialogue and progress in this crucial domain.

March 27, 2024

Mr. Bertram Lee
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20230

RE: [Docket Number 240216-0052] Dual Use Foundation Artificial Intelligence Models with Widely Available Model Weights

Dear Mr. Lee:

The Open Source Initiative (“OSI”) appreciates the opportunity to provide our views on the above referenced matter. As steward of the Open Source Definition¹, the OSI sets the foundation for Open Source software, a global public good that plays a vital role in the economy and is foundational for most technology we use today. As the leading voice on the policies and principles of Open Source, the OSI helps build a world where the freedoms and opportunities of Open Source software can be enjoyed by all and supports institutions and individuals working together to create communities of practice in which the healthy Open Source ecosystem thrives. One of the most important activities of the OSI, a California public benefit 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1998, is to maintain the Open Source Definition for the good of the community².

The OSI is encouraged by the work of NTIA to bring stakeholders together to understand the lessons from the Open Source software experience in having a recognized, unified Open Source Definition that enables an ecosystem whose value is estimated to be worth $8.8 trillion³. As provided below in more detail, it is essential that federal policymakers encourage Open Source AI models to the greatest extent possible, and work with organizations like the OSI which is endeavoring to create a unified, recognized definition of Open Source AI.

The Power of Open Source

Open Source delivers autonomy and personal agency to software users which enables a development method for software that harnesses the power of distributed peer review and transparency of process. The promise of Open Source is higher quality, better reliability, greater flexibility, lower cost, and an end to proprietary lock-in.

Open Source software is widely used across the federal government and in every critical infrastructure sector. “The Federal Government recognizes the immense benefits of Open Source software, which enables software development at an incredible pace and fosters significant innovation and collaboration.”⁴ For the last two decades, authoritative direction and educational resources have been given to agencies on the use, management and benefits of Open Source software.⁵

Moreover, Open Source software has direct economic and societal benefits. Open Source software empowers companies to develop, test and deploy services, thereby substantiating market demand and economic viability. Furthermore, it reduces costs for essential applications like databases within these services (Hoffmann, Nagle and Zhou found that firms would need to spend 3.5 times more on software than they currently do if OSS did not exist).⁶ By leveraging Open Source, companies can accelerate their progress and focus on innovation. Many of the essential services and technologies of our society and economy are powered by Open Source software, including, e.g., the Internet.⁷

The Open Source Definition has demonstrated that massive social benefits accrue when the barriers to learning, using, sharing and improving software systems are removed. The core criteria of the Open Source Definition – free redistribution; source code; derived works; integrity of the author’s source code; no discrimination against persons or groups; no discrimination against fields of endeavor; distribution of license; license must not be specific to a product; license must not restrict other software; license must be technology-neutral – have given users agency, control and self-sovereignty of their technical choices and a dynamic ecosystem based on permissionless innovation.

A recent study published by the European Commission estimated that companies located in the European Union invested around €1 billion in Open Source Software in 2018, which brought about a positive impact on the European economy of between €65 and €95 billion.⁸

This success and the potency of Open Source software has for the last three decades relied upon the recognized unified definition of Open Source software and the list of Approved Licenses that the Open Source Initiative maintains.⁹

OSI believes this “open” analog is highly relevant to Open Source AI as an emerging technology domain with tremendous potential for public benefit.

Distinguishing the Open Source Definition

The OSI Approved License trademark and program creates a nexus of trust around which developers, users, corporations and governments can organize cooperation on Open Source software. However, it is generally agreed that the Open Source Definition, drafted 26 years ago and maintained by the OSI, does not cover this new era of AI systems.

AI models are not just code; they are trained on massive datasets, deployed on intricate computing infrastructure, and accessed through diverse interfaces and modalities. With traditional software, there was a very clear separation between the code one wrote, the compiler one used, the binary it produced, and what license they had. However, for AI models, many components collectively influence the functioning of the system, including the algorithms, code, hardware, and datasets used for training and testing. The very notion of modifying the source code (which is important in the Open Source Definition) becomes fuzzy. For example, there is the key question of whether the training dataset, the model weights, or other key elements should be considered independently or collectively as the source code for the model/weights that have been trained.¹⁰

AI (specifically the Models that it manifests) include a variety of technologies, each is a vital element to all Models.¹¹

This challenge is not new. In its guidance on use of Open Source software, the US Department of Defense distinguished open systems from open standards, that while “different from Open Source software, they are complementary and can work well together”¹²:

Open standards make it easier for users to (later) adopt an Open Source software
program, because users of open standards aren’t locked into a particular
implementation. Instead, users who are careful to use open standards can easily
switch to a different implementation, including an OSS implementation. … Open
standards also make it easier for OSS developers to create their projects, because
the standard itself helps developers know what to do. Creating any interface is an
effort, and having a predefined standard helps reduce that effort greatly.

OSS implementations can help create and keep open standards open. An OSS
implementation can be read and modified by anyone; such implementations can
quickly become a working reference model (a “sample implementation” or an
“executable specification”) that demonstrates what the specification means
(clarifying the specification) and demonstrating how to actually implement it.
Perhaps more importantly, by forcing there to be an implementation that others can
examine in detail, resulting in better specifications that are more likely to be used.

OSS implementations can help rapidly increase adoption/use of the open standard.
OSS programs can typically be simply downloaded and tried out, making it much
easier for people to try it out and encouraging widespread use. This also pressures
proprietary implementations to limit their prices, and such lower prices for
proprietary software also encourages use of the standard.

With practically no exceptions, successful open standards for software have OSS
implementations.¹³

Towards a Unified Vision of what is ‘Open Source AI’

With these essential differentiating elements in mind, last summer, the OSI kicked off a multi-stakeholder process to define the characteristics of an AI system that can be confidently and generally understood to be considered as “Open Source”.

This collaboration utilizes the latest definition of AI system adopted by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and which has been the foundation for NIST’s “AI Risk Management Framework”¹⁴ as well as the European Union’s AI Act:¹⁵

An AI system is a machine-based system that, for explicit or implicit objectives,
infers, from the input it receives, how to generate outputs such as predictions,
content, recommendations, or decisions that can influence physical or virtual
environments. Different AI systems vary in their levels of autonomy and
adaptiveness after deployment.¹⁶

Since its announcement last summer, the OSI has had an open call for papers and held open webinars in order to collect ideas from the community describing precise problem areas in AI and collect suggestions for solutions.¹⁷ More than 6 community reviews – in Europe, Africa, and various locations in the US – have taken place in 2023, coinciding with a first draft of the Open Source AI Definition.¹⁸ This year, the OSI has coordinated working groups to analyze various foundation models, released three more drafts of the Definition, hosted bi-weekly public town halls to review and continues to get feedback from a wide variety of stakeholders, including:

• System Creators (makes AI system and/or component that will be studied, used, modified, or shared through an Open Source license;
• License Creators (writes or edits the Open Source license to be applied to the AI system or component; includes compliance;
• Regulators (writes or edits rules governing licenses and systems (e.g. government policy-maker);
• Licensees (seeks to study, use modify, or share an Open Source AI system (e.g. AI engineer, health researcher, education researcher);
• End Users (consumes a system output, but does not seek to study, use, modify, or share the system (e.g., student using a chatbot to write a report, artist creating an image);
• Subjects (affected upstream or downstream by a system output without interacting with it intentionally; includes advocates for this group (e.g. people with loan denied, or content creators.

What is Open Source AI?

An Open Source AI is an AI system made available to the public under terms that grant the freedoms to:

• Use the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission.
• Study how the system works and inspect its components.
• Modify the system for any purpose, including to change its output.
• Share the system for others to use with or without modifications, for any purpose.

Precondition to exercise these freedoms is to have access to the preferred form to make modifications to the system.¹⁹

The OSI expects to wrap up and report the outcome of in-person and online meetings and anticipates having the draft endorsed by at least 5 reps for each of the stakeholder groups with a formal announcement of the results in late October.

To address the need to define rules for maintenance and review of this new Open Source AI Definition, the OSI Board of Directors²⁰ approved the creation of a new committee to oversee the development of the Open Source AI Definition, approve version 1.0, and set rules for the maintenance of Definition.

Some preliminary observations based on these efforts to date:

• It is generally recognized, as indicated above, that the Open Source Definition as created for software does not completely cover this new era of Open Source AI. This is not a software-only issue and is not something that can be solved by applying the same exact terms in the new territory of defining Open Source AI. The Open Source AI definition will start from the core motivation of the need to ensure users of AI systems retain their autonomy and personal agency.
• To the greatest degree practical, Open Source AI should not be limited in scope, allowing users the right to adopt the technology for any purpose. One of the key lessons and underlying successes of the Open Source Definition is that field-of-use restrictions deprive creators of software to utilize tools in a way to affect positive outcomes in society.
• Reflecting on the past 20-to-30 years of learning about what has gone well and what hasn’t in terms of the open community and the progress it has made, it’s important to understand that openness does not automatically mean ethical, right or just. Other factors such as privacy concerns and safety when developing open systems come into play, and in each element of an AI model – and when put together as a system — there is an ongoing tension between something being open and being safe, or potentially harmful.
• Open Source AI systems lower the barrier for stakeholders outside of large tech companies to shape the future of AI, enabling more AI services to be built by and for diverse communities with different needs that big companies may not always address.
• Similarly, Open Source AI systems make it easier for regulators and civil society to assess AI systems for compliance with laws protecting civil rights, privacy, consumers, and workers. They increase transparency, education, testing and trust around the use of AI, enabling researchers and journalists to audit and write about AI systems’ impacts on society.
• Open source AI systems advance safety and security by accelerating the understanding of their capabilities, risks and harms through independent research, collaboration, and knowledge sharing.
• Open source AI systems promote economic growth by lowering the barrier for innovators, startups, and small businesses from more diverse communities to build and use AI. Open models also help accelerate scientific research because they can be less expensive, easier to fine-tune, and supportive of reproducible research.

The OSI looks forward to working with NTIA as it considers the comments to this RFI, and stands ready to participate in any follow on discussions to this or the general topic of ‘Dual Use Foundation Artificial Intelligence Models With Widely Available Model Weights’. As shared above, it is essential that federal policymakers encourage Open Source AI models to the greatest extent possible, and work with organizations like the OSI and others who are endeavoring to create a unified, recognized definition of Open Source AI.

Respectfully submitted,
THE OPEN SOURCE INITIATIVE

For more information, contact:

• Stefano Maffulli, Executive Director
• Deb Bryant, US Policy Director

1. The Open Source Definition found at https://opensource.org/osd. ︎
2. The OSI is a public charity with no beneficial owners and no corporate controllers, but with 80+ civil society Affiliates working on Open Source. We are incorporated in California, USA, but with a global membership and mission of promoting and defending Open Source software on behalf of the general public and of building bridges within its global community. ︎
3. Hoffmann, Manuel and Nagle, Frank and Zhou, Yanuo, The Value of Open Source Software (January 1, 2024). Harvard Business School Strategy Unit Working Paper No. 24-038, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4693148 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4693148 ︎
4. Office of the National Cyber Director, Executive Office of the President, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, DHS, National Science Foundation, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President, “Request for Information on Open-Source Software Security: Areas of Long-Term Focus and Prioritization”, August 10,2023, found at: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/08/10/2023-17239/request-for-information-on-open-source-software-security-areas-of-long-term-focus-and-prioritization. ︎
5. The earliest and most comprehensive such guidance is the “DoD Open Source Software FAQ”, Office of the DoD CIO, dated 2021-10-28, found at:
   https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/#frequently-asked-questions-regarding-opensource-software-oss-and-the-department-of-defense-dod. See also, generally, U.S. Digital Services, “Digital Services Playbook” (2014) which encourages a ‘default to open’ policy for federal IT, found at: https://playbook.cio.gov/. ︎
6. “The Value of Open Source Software”, Working Paper 24-038, Harvard Business Review, January 2024, found at: https://www.hbs.edu/ris/Publication%20Files/24-038_51f8444f-502c-4139-8bf2-56eb4b65c58a.pdf. ︎
7. BIND is the most commonly used DNS server software on the Internet. See https://www.isc.org/bind/. See Chinmayi Sharma, “Tragedy of the Digital Commons”, North Carolina Law Review, October 2022, found at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4245266 ︎
8. PRESS RELEASE, “Commission publishes study on the impact of Open Source on the European economy”, 06 September 2021, found at: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/news/commission-publishes-study-impact-open-source-european-economy. ︎
9. See https://opensource.org/licenses for a full list. ︎
10. The OSI was a participant in the “Columbia Convening on “Openness and AI”, a recent gathering of over 40 experts and stakeholders in the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI), sponsored by Mozilla and the Columbia Institute of Global Politics. See https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/ai/introducing-columbia-convening-openness-and-ai/. A Technical Readout (was well as a companion Policy Readout), to be published shortly, explores these and related issues. ︎
11. See NIST, ‘Artificial Intelligence: Overview” at https://www.nist.gov/artificial-intelligence. ︎
12. Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of Defense, “DoD Open Source Software FAQ”, found at: https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/ ︎
13. Ibid. See “Q: How does Open Source software work with open systems/open standards?”, found at: https://dodcio.defense.gov/open-source-software-faq/#q-how-does-open-source-software-work-with-open-systemsopen-standards. ︎
14. Found at: https://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/ai/NIST.AI.100-1.pdf. January 2023 by (Adapted from: OECD Recommendation on AI:2019; ISO/IEC 22989:2022)”. ︎
15. “OECD updates definition of Artificial Intelligence ‘to inform EU’s AI Act’”, Euractive.com, November 9, 2023 (updated: November 14, 2023), found at:
    https://www.euractiv.com/section/artificial-intelligence/news/oecd-updates-definition-of-artificial-intelligence-to-inform-eus-ai-act/. ︎
16. “OECD Recommendation of the Council on Artificial Intelligence
    https://legalinstruments.oecd.org/en/instruments/OECD-LEGAL-0449. ︎
17. A chronology of relevant activity can be followed at:
    https://opensource.org/deepdive#see_all_we_achieved_in_2023. ︎
18. The Open Source AI Definition – draft v. 0.0.6
    https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-draft-v-0-0-6 ︎
19. The latest drafts can always be found on opensource.org/deepdive/drafts ︎
20. The OSI is managed by a member-elected board of directors that is the ultimate authority responsible for the organization. More information on the OSI board and governance can be found at: https://opensource.org/board. ︎

The NTIA process is centered on a Request for Comment soliciting public feedback about how making model weights and other model components widely available creates benefits or risks to the broader economy, communities, individuals, and to national security.

NTIA also initiated a series of listening sessions last December. Owing to OSI’s critical effort in the Defining Open Source AI project, we are grateful to have been included in their most recent listening session organized by the Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) for Civil Society organizations. We joined other non-profits working in the public interest to share comments, concerns and encouragement in a generous two hour session with NTIA staff. 

The core of the discussions was centered around open versus closed models. Several organizations brought historical perspectives going back to battles over Open Source in the 90s. A short list of key takeaways from organizations weighing in during the session:

• Open models represent marginal risk. More research is needed to understand where unacceptable risks lie beyond generating negative scenarios – for both open and closed models.
• Encouragement to not regulate the emerging technology itself, rather focus on addressing bad actors and bad behavior.
• Understand the benefits to research in open models, and in particular to provide transparency and accountability to privacy, security and bias concerns.
• Consider equitable access to economic benefits by keeping models open as well as an established factor in innovation.
• Completion of the OSI’s Defining Open Source AI and clarifying terms would greatly assist policy discussions.

NTIA staff expressed an interest in understanding what lessons we might draw from the Open Source software community’s experience with the federal government over the years. (OSI expects to speak to this in their formal response to NTIA’s Request for Comment).

OSI ED Stefano Maffulli provided OSI’s perspective in his comments at the meeting:

The Open Source Initiative is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that is driving a global, multistakeholder discussion to find an unequivocal definition of Open Source AI. We’ve been maintaining the Definition of Open Source software for over 25 years, providing a stable north star for all participants in the Open Source ecosystem, including US federal agencies. 

The Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, Office of Management and Budget, Center for Medicaid/Medicare Services and others are examples of agencies which have relied on the standard Open Source Definition maintained by OSI in crafting their IT policies. 

The Open Source Definition has demonstrated that massive social benefits accrue when you remove the barriers to learning, using, sharing and improving software systems. There is ample evidence that giving users agency, control and self-sovereignty of their technical choices produces an ecosystem based on permissionless innovation. Recent research estimates that if Open Source software didn’t exist, firms would have to spend the equivalent of 8.8 trillion dollars to replace it. This is all based on the clear definition of Open Source software and the list of approved licenses that the Open Source Initiative maintains.

The same kind of unambiguous definition of terms is also needed and deserved in the domain of AI. We’re aware of various uses of the term ‘Open Source’ referring to AI systems and machine learning models whose terms of service have a wide range of obligations and restrictions. 

We found AI systems available publicly with full implementation details, code and data distributed without any obligations as well as other systems only available with limited implementation details, no data, very limited amount of description of the data used to train the model… all generally referred to as “Open Source.”

It’s worth noting that Open Source licenses are a way to flip the intellectual property system: the approved licenses grant rights to users instead of removing them. When thinking about the terms of distribution for model weights, which are basically facts, we should aim to remove the intellectual property regime to begin with.

We’re very concerned about the “economic upside capture” licensing terms we’ve seen in popular models like Llama2, for example. These terms of use are designed to create a network that favors only one economic actor (like the original distributor).

Uncertainties break the innovation cycles. This lack of clarity of terms doesn’t help consumers, scientists, developers or regulators. We’re on target to deliver a usable definition of Open Source AI by the end of October 2024. The definition work is focusing on identifying the preferred form to make modifications to an AI system: the equivalent of “source code” for software programs. This preferred form will be the basis to grant users the same level of self-sovereignty over the AI technologies.

* The NTIA, located within the US Department of Commerce, is the Executive Branch agency that is principally responsible by law for advising the President on telecommunications and information policy issues.

Coming up next: What might we draw from Open Source software’s experience with the federal government?

New regulations in the software industry and adjacent areas such as AI and Data are on the rise around the world.  Cyber Security, societal impact of AI, data and privacy are paramount issues for legislators globally.  At the same time, the COVID-19 pandemic drove collaborative development to unprecedented levels and took Open Source software, open research, open content and data from mainstream to main stage.  Moving forward, developing these important public policies whilst not harming the ecosystem requires an understanding of how our ecosystem operates. And ensuring stakeholders without historic benefit of representation in those discussions becomes paramount to that end.

Open Source is a global, borderless activity.  But public policies are developed locally. The OPA will focus on education in the US while exchanging and sharing information with like-minded organizations globally to make any single investment in resources available for the broadest possible impact.

The OSI recognizes the importance of diverse perspectives and seeks to address this gap by joining with other like-minded organizations.  By bringing together public benefit and charitable foundations with a stake in open collaboration and public access to the value of its results, the coalition aims to foster greater understanding and increased dialog in the realm of Open Source.

Founding members of the Open Policy Alliance include the non profit organizations:

Apereo Foundation

The Document Foundation

Eclipse Foundation

FreeBSD Foundation

Python Software Foundation

OpenInfra Foundation

Open Forum Europe (OFE)

open@RIT Research Lab

Associazione LibreItalia

Plone Foundation

KDE Foundation

We have a modest start with a valuable vision and committed participants. We invite public benefit and charitable foundations with an interest in Open Source software, content, research, and education to join the OPA. By working together, the coalition members will amplify their collective impact, creating a more inclusive and equitable future for Open Source.

We’ll have more news for you in July.  If you’re planning to attend the FOSSY event, you’ll be able to hear our OSI executive director Stefano Maffulli talk about the global policy landscape and OPA’s role in it on July 15th.

For more information about the OPA please email openpolicy@opensource.org.

Current Focus

Europe

• The collision between open standards and open source related to standard-essential patents,
• The sustainability of open source software in European government and especially the lack of funding for maintenance of critical components despite investment in bug-finding, and
• The challenges of ensuring public funds result in public code in an environment where tendered outsourcing is the norm.
• The direct and accidental effects on open source of the current wave of legislative proposals including DMA and DSA.

 United States

• Implications for open source projects and community downstream of new executive orders and proposed legislation on supply chain security.

• Watching Senate Bill 4913 with interest
• Participating in conversations regarding supply chain security and implications for the way open source software is developed

• Getting non-profit, public benefit organizations a seat at the table in policy development as an underrepresented component of the full open source ecosystem, and
• Emerging interest in AI/ML policy

International Communities

• OSI is bringing together a network of policy practitioners for information and resource sharing to address common challenges. The Public Policy list is an important element of that intent, as is collaboration with public benefit entities with common interest in the health of open source.

If you’d like to join the discussion please subscribe to the public-policy at opensource.org mailing list.

In hearing OSI’s early stories by its original board members, I learned they’d been surprised by  governments seeking their help in understanding Open Source. These public-sector agencies consulted with the OSI on how and where Open Source software might play a role in their public mission. Governmental agencies rely upon non-profits—such as the OSI, that are neutral in their financial interests and chartered to serve the public good by their very definition—to assist in shaping public policy. Today, that need is more urgent than ever.

Every smart organization takes a pause to revisit their mission and value to the public they serve. OSI’s core mission, embedded in its articles of incorporation and bylaws, is to educate about and encourage participation in Open Source software. One could be lured into a sense that Open Source has “won” and that the mission is accomplished. But as the world keeps changing, the need to educate and encourage as well as defend the Open Source Definition (OSD) is simply persistent and continuous. As technology innovation and Open Source’s crucial role in it continues to rise exponentially, the need for OSI to be an asset for policy makers has never been more critical.  

For me, coming back to Open Source policy work is close to my heart. My roots in this space go back to 2003 when the first piece of state legislation on Open Source was introduced in the State of Oregon and, as the state’s deputy CIO, I was asked to provide the governor a position for the executive branch. Part of the bill required the Department of Administrative Services to define what Open Source was (not the best idea, but it led me to the OSI). My journey took me through legislative testimony and public hearings, integrating Open Source strategy into economic development, leading a non-profit government Open Source conference for seven years, supporting education and Humanitarian Free and Open Source (HFOSS) projects and forging lasting relationships with like-minded individuals and organizations in academia, government, nonprofits and industry.  

I served on the OSI board for eight years because I believe in the critical nature—often understated—of its mission. I am deeply grateful for the warm welcome extended to me by the OSI board of directors, who I had a chance to speak with during their August meeting. The value of policy work in support of OSI’s mission is well understood.

In today’s world, complexity increases constantly and policy-making responses to economic and security matters rise as Open Source software’s role continues to play a critical role in public and societal concerns. And what of AI and Machine Learning? We anticipate continued public discourse on these new technologies and the need for an independent voice to cover the concerns of public interest where Open Source is concerned. There’s no shortage of places for things to go sideways, or to go well.

There are many ways policy decisions can impact our Open Source software ecosystem and its benefit to individuals and organizations alike. We’re formalizing a program as a resource to serve the public and take on some of the most looming questions facing policy makers today.  Stay tuned. Better yet, let me know how you think we can help.