FLOSS Research

The Open Source Summit Europe is a conference organized by the Linux Foundation with the goal of bringing together Open Source developers, technologists and community leaders to collaborate, share information, solve problems and gain knowledge. Last week, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) was present at this event, driving three key efforts: 1) the Open Source AI discussion; 2) the launch of Opensource.net; and 3) the future of ClearlyDefined.

The Open Source AI discussion

Open Source AI has been a hot topic since the beginning of the year, but there’s no clear definition of what’s actually “Open Source AI”. To address this question, the OSI has created an open process gathering opinions and comments from individual developers, lawyers, researchers, non-profit organizations, companies and government officials developing and using AI systems. As part of this open process, the OSI is organizing a series of events, both online and in-person. Having a presence at the Open Source Summit Europe was important to gather the perspectives from different stakeholders, particularly from the European community.

Our first activity was at the LLM Avalanche Bilbao event that happened prior to the main conference. This event was a follow-up from the very successful LLM Avalanche San Francisco that took place in the Bay area in June. The OSI presented an overview of the recent discussions and got some important feedback from the audience, among which a suggestion for the OSI to participate in other events tailored for AI researchers and scientists.

As part of the keynotes at the main conference, “Open Source AI” was a big focus, with many exciting announcements from the Linux Foundation, including the launch of the Generative AI Commons and the Unified Acceleration Foundation. Nithya Ruff, head of the AWS Open Source Programme Office (OSPO), also kindly highlighted the work from the OSI in this space at her keynote.

The launch of OpenSource.net

The OSI officially announced the launch of OpenSource.net at the Open Source Summit Bilbao. With the decision from Red Hat to halt the publication of new articles at Opensource.com, the community of authors that have gathered around this site for the past 12 years were at risk of disappearing. The OSI stepped in to provide this community with a neutral home where they can continue to share knowledge and engage with other members.

At the OSI’s booth, postcards from OpenSource.net were being distributed to attendees so they could be shared with friends. The launch was well received and new articles are expected to be published in the coming weeks. OpenSource.net welcomes new contributions under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License.

The future of ClearlyDefined

Finally, the OSI also had important discussions about the future of ClearlyDefined, which aims to create a global database of licensing metadata for every Open Source software component ever published. Nick Vidal, community manager of ClearlyDefined, held productive conversations with Justin Colannino, OSI board member and assistant general counsel at Microsoft, and Thomas Steenbergen, co-founder of the ClearlyDefined and OSS Review Toolkit (ORT) projects.

ClearlyDefined is currently undergoing a process of adopting a more open governance model, where different stakeholders can have a say in the direction of the project. This process started at the first ORT Community Day held in Berlin about 6 months ago. Since then, new members have shown interest in being more involved with the ClearlyDefined community, in particular GitHub, who has recently added 17.5 million package licenses to their database. The hope is that by the end of the year a more open governance model will be established and soon after a new release of ClearlyDefined will be released with input from the community. 

Conclusion

OSI’s participation at the Open Source Summit Europe was very important. The OSI was able to gather valuable feedback from the community around three efforts currently underway and further straighten the partnership with the Linux Foundation.

If you are interested in learning more about all of OSI’s programs, please check our website and get involved. The OSI is currently hosting a webinar series as part of the “Deep Dive: Defining Open Source AI”. In October, the OSI will host a special track at All Things Open including five sessions covering Open Source licenses, policy, security and a double session to draft a definition for “Open Source AI”.

The post <span class='p-name'>Three highlights from Open Source Summit Europe 2023</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

Earlier this month, we announced completion of the project to review the list of Approved Licenses. The Open Source community needs a resource to confidently and easily identify OSI-approved licenses, and now we have it. This approval registry offers a comprehensive and authoritative listing of all licenses so organizations know that the license they choose for their project allows their software to be freely used, modified, shared and monetized in compliance with the Open Source Definition.

But how do we check the compliance of new licenses with the Open Source Definition? The License Review Working Group was formed to examine ways to improve the license review process, with the stated purpose of evaluating or reevaluating:

• the criteria for approving licenses, potentially setting different standards for licenses in use versus new licenses
• the process for considering licenses for approval, including whether the OSI should itself nominate licenses for approval
• the current categories for licenses, including how they are used and their usefulness
• whether there should be a process for decertifying licenses, and what the process and standards would be for the process

(Originally, the group was scoped to examine the process of delisting licenses, but it delegated this topic to a separate working group.) 

One important output of the License Review Working Group was defining the difference between a legacy license and a new license. A legacy license is now defined as one that has been in widespread use for at least five years by a number of different unaffiliated entities. New licenses are, by definition, all other licenses. 

The updated license review process is now live and below are the most important changes.

License submission process

The group took on the license submission process, focusing on the difficulty in navigating the review process. The role of the license-review email list and its relationship to OSI is clarified with more explanation on the decision making process, in particular the role of the license-review list participants.

The new submission process clarifies the difference in process between new licenses and all licenses. For all licenses, the submission process requires that the license submitter affirmatively state that the license complies with the Open Source Definition, including specifically affirming it meets OSD 3, 5, 6 and 9 (the points that historically have been more problematic). They must identify what projects are already using the license, if any, and ask for the identity of the license steward, if known. The OSI will try to get in touch with the license steward if different from the license submitter. Submitters must provide any additional information believed to be helpful for license review, as well as a unique name for the license (preferably including the version number) and an SPDX identifier if one already exists. Finally, all license submitters must identify any proposed tags for the license.

For new licenses, the license submitter will also be asked to describe what gap is not filled by currently existing licenses that the new license will fill. Specifically, they must compare it with the most similar OSI-approved license(s). They must describe any legal review the license has been through, including whether it was drafted by a lawyer, and provide examples of others’ potential use of the license to demonstrate that it is not a license that is uniquely usable only by the license submitter.

For both categories (new licenses and all licenses), approval of a similar license in the past does not bind the OSI to approval of a newly submitted license.

Approval standards

The License Review Working Group also developed approval standards for new and legacy licenses and clarified that the current categorization system of popular licenses and all approved licenses is no longer needed. Rather than continuing the current categorization of licenses, the OSI plans to adopt a tagging system for licenses. These tags will aid third parties in identifying licenses suitable for their use case.

In order to continue the success of the anti-proliferation work, the License Review Working Group proposed three categories of licenses: Rejected, Approved, and Preferred. 

In short, a great deal of time and effort went into the careful examination of many issues, and the support of and commentary from the community were invaluable in reaching a set of recommendations that were approved by the board. If you’re interested in the deliberations and details, you can read more at the License Review Working Group wiki.

Next steps

We’re planning to further improve for the license review process by introducing new tools to discuss the text of the licenses. Recognizing that holding conversations over email is uncomfortable for all actors, we’re designing a better system. Stay tuned for more changes.

The post <span class='p-name'>How the OSI checks if new licenses comply with the Open Source Definition</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

Open Source enthusiasts have grown to rely on unbiased, community-led content. Writers and editors of the project formerly known as Opensource.com are being invited to join OpenSource.net, a domain hosted by the Open Source Initiative.

Bilbao, Spain – September 18, 2023 – Today, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has become the new home for the former Opensource.com community. Writers and editors formerly contributing to Opensource.com are being invited to continue their work under the OSI umbrella, posting content at a domain owned by the OSI: OpenSource.net.

The Opensource.com project had become a community favorite for news, information, opinion and how-tos surrounding the key issues in Open Source software, publishing over 10,000 articles. Over the course of 12 years, Open Source contributors advocated for the creation, adoption and sharing of all things Open Source. As a 501(c)(3) organization and the steward of the Open Source Definition, OSI will oversee OpenSource.net as a not-for-profit, technology-neutral resource for the Open Source community to share knowledge, perspectives and advocacy in support of a healthy Open Source ecosystem. 

OpenSource.net is launching in response to the halt of Opensource.com operations by supervising entity Red Hat, which supports the move. This includes facilitating the republishing of selected, previously published material from Opensource.com for the archives of OpenSource.net with the project’s technical editor Seth Kenlon continuing to play an advisory and supporting role.

Value of OpenSource.net to the Community

OpenSource.net is a community project. A group has been established to host community discussions about the development of OpenSource.net. Interested parties are encouraged to participate. Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, is kindly assisting the project with website design support.

The former authors at Opensource.com are in the process of repurposing their content and republishing selected articles on OpenSource.net. Content published on OpenSource.net will remain in the control of the author under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International License. 

Underwriting Opportunities

Operational support for OpenSource.net will come from the OSI, which is working to establish underwriting opportunities to help support this work. Those interested in supporting this initiative can contact the OSI.

“Continuing the work of the Opensource.com writers is in perfect alignment with our mission,” said Stefano Maffulli, executive director of the Open Source Initiative. “The content shared there supports healthy dialog and informed education on Open Source software issues and topics. We will strive to assure that the editorial standards and code of conduct at OpenSource.net will reflect those of Opensource.com, making the new offering a place where all community authors and editors are able to offer new ideas and foster engagement that helps create a positive future for Open Source software.”

“Open Source is about people as much as, if not more than, it is about software. For 12 years, Opensource.com published over 10,000 articles by more than 2,000 different authors. We are all excited to help the Open Source Initiative promote and safeguard the essential freedoms of Open Source software and hardware, and just as importantly, the vitality of the Open Source community,” said Seth Kenlon, former technical editor at Opensource.com.

“As the editorial manager for many years, our team put our heart and soul into growing Opensource.com into a truth-telling and real-life-story sharing platform for the Open Source community,” said Jen Wike Huger, former editorial manager. “It’s only right that another caretaker in the industry steps up and fills the gap. The lives and stories of developers from all over the world continue, and so we should continue to share.” 

About the Open Source Initiative

Founded in 1998, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation with global scope formed to educate about and advocate for the benefits of Open Source and to build bridges among different constituencies in the Open Source community. It is the steward of the Open Source Definition, setting the foundation for the global Open Source ecosystem. Join and support the OSI mission today at https://opensource.org/join.

The post <span class='p-name'>Opensource.com Community Finds New Life With the Open Source Initiative</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

[SPONSOR OPINION]

By Heather Meeker, OSS Capital

Machine learning has been around for a long time. But in late 2022, recent advancements in deep learning and large language models started to change the game and come into the public eye. And people started thinking, “We love Open Source software, so, let’s have Open Source AI, too.” 

But what is Open Source AI? And the answer is: we don’t know yet. 

Machine learning models are not software. Software is written by humans, like me. Machine learning models are trained; they learn on their own automatically, based on the input data provided by humans. When programmers want to fix a computer program, they know what they need: the source code. But if you want to fix a model, you need a lot more: software to train it, data to train it, a plan for training it, and so forth. It is much more complex. And reproducing it exactly ranges from difficult to nearly impossible.

The Open Source Definition, which was made for software, is now in its third decade, and has been a stunning success. There are standard Open Source licenses that everyone uses. Access to source code is a living, working concept that people use every day. But when we try to apply Open Source concepts to AI, we need to first go back to principles.

For something to be “Open Source” it needs to have one overarching quality:  transparency. What if an AI is screening you for a job, or for a medical treatment, or deciding a prison sentence? You want to know how it works. But deep learning models right now are a black box. If you look at the output of a model, it’s impossible to tell how or why the model came up with that output. All you can do is look at the inputs to see if its training was correct. And that’s not nearly as straightforward as looking at source code. 

AI has the potential to greatly benefit our world. Now is the first time in history we’ve had the information and technology to tackle our biggest problems, like climate change, poverty and war. Some people are saying AI will destroy the world, but I think it contributes to the hope of saving the world. 

But first, we need to trust it. And to trust it, it needs to be open and transparent.

As a consumer you should demand that the AI you use is open. As a developer, you should know what rights you have to study and improve AI. As a voter, you should have the right to demand that AI used by the government is open and transparent. 

Without transparency, AI is doomed. AI is potentially so powerful and capable that people are already frightened of it. Without transparency, AI risks going the way of crypto–a technology with great potential that gets shut down by distrust. I hope that we will figure out how to guarantee transparency before that happens, because the problems AI can help us solve are urgent, and I believe we can solve them if we work together. 

—-

OSI has gathered a group of leaders who will be presenting ideas around the topic of AI and Open Source in our upcoming Deep Dive: Defining Open Source AI Webinar Series. Registration is free and allows you to attend and ask questions at any or all of the sessions taking place between September 26 and October 12, 2023. REGISTER HERE today!

The post <span class='p-name'>To trust AI, it must be open and transparent. Period.</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

The Open Source Definition isn’t directly applicable to AI systems, so global experts will gather to establish shared principles to protect the values of Open Source during this period of hyper growth in AI technology.

SAN FRANCISCO – September 11, 2023 – Open Source Initiative (OSI), the non-profit corporation that educates about and advocates for the importance of non-proprietary software, is hosting its 2nd Deep Dive: AI event, this one focused on Defining Open Source AI. The goal is to work toward establishing a clear and defendable definition of “Open Source AI.” OSI is bringing together global experts to establish a shared set of principles that can recreate a permissionless, pragmatic and simplified collaboration for AI practitioners, similar to what the Open Source Definition has done.

OSI is the steward of the Open Source Definition, which serves as the foundation of the modern software ecosystem, outlining the distribution terms of Open Source software. OSI also maintains a list of OSI Approved Licenses that have become a nexus of trust around which developers, users, corporations and governments can organize Open Source cooperation.

“It’s time to define what ‘open’ means in AI before it is defined by accident,” said Stefano Maffulli, executive director of OSI. “This milestone project is essential right now. Policymakers, re-users and modifiers are confused, and developers aren’t clear on data sharing and transparency. A permission structure is needed to help fight open washing.”

Representatives from Mozilla Foundation, Creative Commons, Wikimedia Foundation, Internet Archive, Linux Foundation Europe, OSS Capital and OSI board members met on June 21, 2023 in San Francisco to set parameters for the first working document of a “Definition of AI systems” that reflect Open Source values. Read the notes of the meeting.

Supporting Quotes

“It’s critical to develop shared definitions about what it means to contribute to the commons, including through open source,”  said Catherine Stihler, CEO of Creative Commons. “The participatory process organized by the OSI is an important way to find the common values shared by the widest variety of organizations and people around the world.”

“The next decade of open infrastructure will be built hand in hand with AI,” said Mark Collier, COO of the OpenInfra Foundation. “The OpenInfra Foundation and the community, engaged with its projects—including OpenStack, Kata Containers, and StarlingX—is focused on defining how AI will play its role. We’re excited to participate in OSI’s process to find a common baseline and definition that all of us can rely on to further the values of ‘open’ to the AI field, as soon as possible.”

A diverse range of organizations support the OSI’s open definition process for AI. Most recently, Google has increased its financial commitments to support this urgent initiative. Timothy Jordan, Director of Open Source and Developer Relations at Google, stated “Google is excited to continue our support of the Open Source Initiative and, more broadly, of open source developers. We look forward to the open collaboration involved in drafting the Definition of Open Source AI and hope it will help accelerate innovation in this space.” We are excited to have Google Open Source on board.

Other organizations, like GitHub, Amazon, OSS Capital, GitLab, Weaviate and Sourcegraph believe in this effort as well and are supporting the process with their generous donations. OSI also welcomes individual donations.

“Deep Dive: Defining Open Source AI” Webinar Speakers & Schedule

OSI called upon the Open Source community to contribute to the conversations and collective thinking. OSI opened a call for presentations to be given in a Deep Dive webinar series focused on identifying the foundational principles of Open AI. These speakers have been selected to present precise problem areas in AI and clear suggestions for solutions: 

• Arielle Bennett – The Alan Turing Institute
• Thierry Carrez – OpenInfra Foundation
• Danish Contractor – RAIL
• Jennifer Ding – The Alan Turing Institute
• Mark Dingemanse – Radboud University
• Justin Dorfman – Sourcegraph
• Ivo Emanuilov – University of Sofia
• Denny George – Tattle Civic Tech
• Mary Hardy – Microsoft
• Katharina Koerner – Tech Diplomacy Network
• Andreas Liesenfeld – Radboud University
• Alianda Lopez – Radboud University
• Monica Lopez – Holistic AI
• Samantha Mandell – Sourcegraph
• Siddharth Manohar – Data Governance Consultant
• Daniel McDuff – RAIL
• Michael Meehan – Diveplane
• Mike Nolan – Open@RIT
• Tarunima Prabhakar – Tattle Civic Tech
• Rohan Singh Rajput – Headspace
• McCoy Smith – Lex Pan Law
• Davanum Srinivas – AWS
• Anne Steele – The Alan Turing Institute
• Dimitris Stripelis – NevronAI
• Jutta Suksi – VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
• Alek Tarkowski – Open Future Foundation
• Luis Villa – Tidelift & Creative Commons
• Kirstie Whitaker – The Alan Turing Institute
• Tammy Zhu – Sourcegraph

Webinars will be held Tuesday through Thursday between September 26 and October 12 (daily schedule). Each session will include a live Q&A with attendees. Registration is free, and single registration gains you access to all of the webinars in the series. The webinars will culminate in the community panels and working sessions at All Things Open conference in Raleigh, North Carolina, from October 15-17.

Comment on the Draft of the “Open Source AI Definition”

A release candidate of the Open Source AI Definition will be available for public discussion at All Things Open, on October 17. Interested parties can review the full schedule of the global drafting and review process. 

Sponsors

The “OSI Deep Dive: Defining Open Source AI” event is made possible by the support of these sponsors: 

• Supporters: Google, GitHub, Amazon
• Platinum: OSS Capital
• Gold: GitLab
• Bronze: Sourcegraph, Weaviate
• Media partner: Techstrong AI
• Donations by the individual members of the Open Source Initiative.

Others interested in offering support can contact OSI at sponsors@opensource.org.

The post <span class='p-name'>Open Source Initiative Hosts 2nd Deep Dive AI Event, Aims to Define ‘Open Source’ for AI</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

A license-review project has been underway with the goal of creating a systematic and well-ordered database of all the licenses that have been submitted to OSI for approval since the time of the organization’s founding. Giulia Dellanoce was brought on as an intern to complete this Approval Registry project, and we’re very thankful for her work in completing this mission.

The OSI Approved Licenses database is now available on the OSI website!

The Open Source community needs a resource to confidently and easily identify licenses that have gained OSI approval, and now they have it. This Approval Registry offers a comprehensive and authoritative listing of all licenses so organizations know that the license they choose for their project allows their software to be freely used, modified, shared and monetized in compliance with the Open Source Definition.

The building of the Approval Registry required the review of decades worth of material, including:

• Review of the public license review mailing lists from 2008 – 2023
• Review of the license discuss mailing lists from 1999 – 2007
• Review of the public board meeting minutes 2005 – 2023 

The license pages have been updated to include the status of each license, whether it has been approved, withdrawn, voluntarily retired or rejected by the board. The metadata of each license has also been updated with links to relevant documentation. 

More valuable licensing information to come

There are plans for future expansion of this project, as the work is never done. Greater details about licenses will continue to be added. As licenses move through the process of being considered for OSI approval, a current status will be listed in the database. Also, OSI has assembled a listing of non-approved licenses for easy searching that will be located on the website at a future date. 

Another future expansion is the development of an API service that can answer questions like “is this license approved?” There is already a community-contributed API service but it’s not carefully maintained to match the actual list. If you have uses for consuming the database of Approved Licenses via API please get in touch.

If you think we’ve missed something, a license page looks wrong or you have access to email board archives from the past, please let us know. File a ticket or contact us.

Thank you to Giulia for this important work, and to Slim.AI for the donation to OSI that supported this project so they and other companies can have a trustable, centralized list of Open Source Approved License®.

The post <span class='p-name'>The Approved Open Source Licenses never looked better</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

As the European Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) is entering into the final legislative phase, it still has some needs arising from framing by the Commission or Parliament that result in breakage no matter how issues within its scope are “fixed”. 

Here’s a short list to help the co-legislators understand the engagement from the Open Source community.

• OSI and the experts with whom they engage are not trying to get all of Open Source out of scope as maximalist lobbyists do for other aspects of technology. An exclusion from the regulation for Open Source software per se would open a significant loophole for openwashing. But the development of Open Source software in the open needs to be excluded from scope just as the development of software in private is. Our goal in engaging is just to prevent unintentional breakage while largely embracing the new regulation.
• There is no one way to use Open Source. Many of the policymakers we’ve spoken to think of Open Source components in supply chains under the care of foundations like the Eclipse Foundation that are used essentially as-is. But the freedoms of Open Source are also used for stack building, consumer tools, enabling research, hobbyist tinkering, as the basis for European small businesses like XWiki, Open-Xchange, Abilian, and more. All these many other uses exist and are broken differently by the CRA. Software is primarily a cultural artifact and that aspect must be prioritized.
• There is no single Open Source business model. People make money from Open Source (by charging for it, running it as a service and supporting it) and with Open Source (by simplifying their businesses and reducing costs); they shape markets via Open Source by enabling adjacent businesses, commoditising competitors without then monetising their customers, and more – there are a significant number of business models made possible by software freedom. So any attempt to identify commerciality is sure to be model-specific and consequently have unintended consequences for other models.
• Even larger foundations like Linux Foundation do not actually employ the sort of staff who ensure code compliance – Open Source is conceptually disjoint from proprietary software. To comply with the CRA – if they find themselves in-scope – they will need them to hire a whole new operating unit. To them, the burden of compliance is not a cost of development funded by revenue as it would be for a manufactured physical good where staffing exists and just needs adapting.

OSI still recommends the Cyber Resilience Act should exclude all activities prior to commercial deployment of software and clearly ensure that responsibility for CE marks does not rest with any actor who is not a direct commercial beneficiary of deployment.

The post <span class='p-name'>Diverse Open Source uses highlight need for precision in Cyber Resilience Act</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) continues the work of exploring complexities surrounding the development and use of artificial intelligence in Deep Dive: AI – Defining Open Source AI, with the goal of collaboratively establishing a clear and defensible definition of “Open Source AI.” OSI is bringing together global experts to establish a shared set of principles that can recreate a permissionless, pragmatic and simplified collaboration for AI practitioners, similar to what the Open Source Definition has done.

Building community momentum and support

We’ve gathered a significant amount of support from groups all over the world. Most recently, Google has increased its financial commitments to support this urgent initiative. Timothy Jordan, Director of Open Source and Developer Relations at Google, stated “Google is excited to continue our support of the Open Source Initiative and, more broadly, of open source developers. We look forward to the open collaboration involved in drafting the Definition of Open Source AI and hope it will help accelerate innovation in this space.” 

For Catherine Stihler, executive director of Creative Commons “It’s critical to develop shared definitions about what it means to contribute to the commons, including through open source. The participatory process organized by the OSI is an important way to find the common values shared by the widest variety of organizations and people around the world.” 

While Mark Collier, COO, OpenInfra Foundation said that “The next decade of open infrastructure will be built hand-in-hand with AI. The OpenInfra Foundation and the community engaged with its projects, including OpenStack, Kata Containers, and StarlingX, is focused on defining how AI will play its role. We’re excited to participate in OSI’s process to find—as soon as possible—a common baseline and definition that all of us can rely on to further the values of ‘open’ to the AI field.”  

Other organizations, like GitHub, Amazon, OSS Capital, Weaviate and Sourcegraph also believe in this effort and are supporting the process with generous donations. OSI also welcomes individual donations.

“Deep Dive: Defining Open Source AI” webinars

After gathering a group of people from Mozilla Foundation, Creative Commons, Wikimedia Foundation, Internet Archive, Linux Foundation Europe, OSS Capital, and the OSI board in June 2023 in San Francisco, OSI is kicking off our webinar series to hear from more experts.

The presentations series identifies foundational principles of “Open” in the context of AI and will contribute to the conversations and collective thinking. The topics were selected for their focus on precise problem areas in AI and offer clear suggestions for solutions based on their expertise in many areas. 

Webinars will be held Tuesday through Thursday between September 26 and October 12 (daily schedule coming soon). Each session will include a live Q&A with attendees. Registration is free and single registration gains you access to all webinars in the series. 

Comment on the Draft of the “Open Source AI Definition”
A draft of the Open Source AI Definition will be available for public discussion at All Things Open, on October 17. Interested parties can review the full schedule of the global drafting and review process.

The post <span class='p-name'>Driving the global conversation about “Open Source AI”</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

(Thanks to Paloma Oliveira for this contribution!)

Reflecting on how to improve our open communities

Navigating uncharted waters often leads to intriguing discoveries. Imagine immersing yourself in a realm that commemorates a quarter-century of Open Source accomplishment. Invited by Open Source Initiative (OSI) to reflect upon the 25 years of Open Source at COSCUP, a conference in Taiwan that focuses on coders, users and promoters of Open Source, I threw myself into these waters by proposing a review of history that is not unique around the globe, taking my perspective from South America and Europe to Asia, where I had never before ventured. 

You can read a full transcript of my talk here and check my critical take on the topic. After all, to review is to be able to identify where we failed and to be able to proceed from there.

More than offering something, I return with baggage full of new perspectives that made me renew my vision about the importance of Open Source in global and local contexts. COSCUP is a distinguished conference, drawing together Open Source enthusiasts mostly from around Asia: Japan, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Hong Kong and many others were heavily present. In this piece, we’ll embark on a thoughtful exploration of COSCUP’s defining characteristics, offering a nuanced perspective that distinguishes it in the bustling landscape of technology events.

So, what makes COSCUP a great conference?

From and to the communities

Spread across two days, the conference adopts a unique structure, with sessions categorized under different tracks, each managed by dedicated communities. This approach empowers participants to navigate subjects aligned with their interests, fostering connections with kindred spirits. The emphasis on community-led curation breathes fresh air into the conventional conference model. You can find the topics/ communities here  https://coscup.org/2023/en/topics.

Image from the author from the hallway signage informing of rooms and content curated by communities 

A melting pot of global and local voices

Navigating through COSCUP’s conference offerings went beyond language preferences in English or Chinese. In reality, it was a journey through a tapestry of diverse voices, akin to a symphony of polyphonies. This allowed for an intriguing blend of both global and local perspectives. 

While English has emerged as the dominant language in the technology landscape, serving as a common thread for communication, relying solely on English excludes those without fluency. This limitation bears various consequences; fluently expressing and understanding nuances in a language beyond one’s mother tongue is a privilege. Creating spaces for regional languages broadens participation and welcomes those who are still learning or aiming to navigate the intricate world of Open Source. This inclusion empowers individuals to express their thoughts across a broad spectrum, fostering the exploration of local solutions.

An illustration of the need for such inclusivity can be found in conversations with individuals like Naru from the SODA Foundation who asked us to consider the challenge of non-alphabetic writing systems. Naru highlighted the case of LibreOffice, which has a scarcity of developers fluent in logographic languages. This linguistic gap causes code disruptions, as changes from Europe and America often disregard alternative writing systems. How can this issue be tackled without understanding the unique requirements of such languages? This showcases the necessity for more developers who are versed in these languages to contribute actively and have a say in decisions. Hence, it becomes evident that influential conferences like COSCUP should maintain programs that encompass a broad spectrum, catering to both global connections and local preservation of diverse cultures.

In the conference schedule you can find communities from Hong Kong, a special Japan track and several talks about local dialect preservation, such as the talk: “How can we utilize Wikidata to protect Puyuma, an endangered language?”

Shining a spotlight on open design

Organized by Women Techmakers Taiwan and curated by catcatcatcat, this track directed attention to the intersection of development and design, a facet that often remains overlooked in the Open Source landscape. 

Unlike traditional tech conferences, where technical aspects often take precedence, the curated workshops and talks placed the spotlight on design’s pivotal role in enhancing usability. This spotlight reflects a broader understanding that technology should seamlessly align with users’ needs. The renewed focus on open design casts light on a pivotal aspect that influences the adoption and longevity of Open Source solutions.

While I’ve observed a growing trend of incorporating this topic into conferences like FOSS-Backstage and AllThingsOpen, it often remains on the periphery. However, at COSCUP, the dedicated room hosted a series of workshops and talks that delved beyond the technology driving creations. The emphasis extended to the synergy between developers and designers, with a paramount focus on the intrinsic purpose of technology – to serve users.

Historically, Open Source has leaned heavily towards lauding the technical aspects of its creations, an inclination that spawns a cascade of challenges. From an inclusion standpoint, this often hampers opportunities for contributions from diverse perspectives, particularly when these technologies directly influence various demographics.

Image taken from Eriol Fox & Abhishek Sharma workshop Becoming better contributors to social impact

From a sustainability perspective, technologies devoid of usability contribute to the generation of excessive waste. Although digital, the hidden mound of discarded components remains invisible. If we could visualize it, the space consumed by discarded hardware, the energy expended by servers, electrical consumption, data usage, and more would likely span vast expanses. Surprisingly, cloud storage – in existence for over a decade – has become more polluting than the aviation industry. Amidst the digital revolution’s accelerated production of software and the cost-effective proliferation of hardware and software, minimal thought has been spared for the unsustainability of this excessive production. Moreover, the repercussions of this surplus on the physical world remain woefully unaddressed.

From both a software and product perspective, technology devoid of usability and tangible user value fails to find traction within communities or markets. The pursuit of acceleration often overlooks a pivotal question: Why and for whom are we creating this technology? While development timelines might differ from research periods, harmony between these phases ensures the birth of superior and more sustainable creations.

In essence, the COSCUP conference didn’t just highlight open design’s significance, it underscored the imperative need to integrate user-centric perspectives into Open Source innovation. This paradigm shift extends beyond code, advocating for a holistic approach that recognizes the interplay of technology, design and its real-world implications.

Prioritizing well-being: nurturing mental health and balance

For a while now, both Europe and America have been awash with articles and talks addressing mental health issues, burnout and the impostor syndrome. A growing chorus stresses the urgency of spotlighting these challenges, emphasizing individual care and self-preservation. 

Conferences can often become grueling endeavors. The short timeframes that cram copious amounts of information, combined with the jet lag and the effort of navigating languages that aren’t always native, transform conference participation into a marathon. While undeniably exciting, it’s essential to recognize that conferences also constitute a form of work, especially in the context of Open Source, which largely resides within the professional sphere.

Seldom do conferences provide havens for respite, such as quiet rooms (which are rare), but other great conferences like PyCon PyData Berlin and KubeCon do offer the space. This initiative marked a commendable effort towards acknowledging the attendees’ well-being. However, COSCUP took this commitment a step further. By constraining conference hours from 8:50 AM to 5:00 PM, the organizers ensured that attendees’ time, mirroring regular working hours, remained within manageable limits. This pragmatic approach mitigated the risk of exhaustion, a common side effect of conferences.

In addition, conversations with Zoei, who boasts a background in psychology and is a key contributor to the well-being initiatives at COSCUP, provided valuable insights. She emphasized the transition from rhetoric to action. This commitment was tangibly manifested in the Healing Market, offering a range of amenities – from massage room to meditation sessions and even wine yoga – all designed to offer attendees much-needed moments of solace during the conference days.

Image from the author from the hallway signage informing about Healing Market offerings: yoga, meditation, board game and parents workshop Becoming better contributors to social impact

Notably, COSCUP extended its support to attendees who are parents, a demographic often left underserved in such environments. By dedicating specialized rooms, sessions and workshops to parents and children, COSCUP fostered an environment where developers and enthusiasts with children could participate fully without compromising on their family responsibilities.

Image from the author showing door signage for the parent-child workshop

Image from the author attending Wine Yoga session

In conclusion, COSCUP’s stance on well-being transcended the theoretical to embrace the practical, acknowledging the multifaceted nature of conference participation. The meticulous considerations for attendees’ mental and physical well-being reflect the conference’s commitment to holistic care, setting an example for other events to prioritize the welfare of their participants.

Beyond the conference halls: embracing cultural diversity

COSCUP invited participants to explore the rich tapestry of its host city beyond the conference walls. As a first-time traveler to Asia, I embarked on this journey with a mix of anticipation and trepidation. The value of in-person conferences became evident as I immersed myself in different cultures. Tangible experiences – from unfamiliar scents to novel flavors – offer a depth of engagement that virtual interactions can’t replicate. COSCUP’s encouragement to step beyond the digital realm aligns perfectly with the yearning for immersive experiences. International Exchanges Cross Community Gathering, Taipei City Tour, and several other community lead gatherings offered opportunities for meetings outside the conference walls, allowing participants to strengthen their interpersonal relationships.

Image from the author with other attendants from all around Asia during the international gathering night

Image from the author with COSCUP organizers at the end of the Taipei City Tour, which included a walk-in tour through the Old Town and a Chinese medicine experience in the Daily Health store

Image from the author with other COSCUP participants making medicinal tea at the Daily Health Chinese Medicine shop experience

Why attend conferences?

While digital interactions possess the potential for depth, the allure of in-person conferences holds a distinct magic. This allure magnifies when we immerse ourselves in diverse cultures. Even when we share common themes, the prism of reception and cultural context transforms how we comprehend and receive information. Sensory dimensions such as scents, tastes, textures and even ambient temperature intricately shape our attention and interpretation. The symphony of these sensations underpins why we travel; it’s an experience beyond the distraction-prone realm of simultaneous online engagement.

I seized the chance to integrate myself into the country’s fabric and cross the east coast of the island by bike. I gathered some useful information about it which you can read here.

The essence of conferences truly thrives in the hushed conversations, spontaneous exchanges, and the symphony of interaction beyond the spotlight. Sensory immersion plays a pivotal role—varied sights, sounds, scents and tastes provide a holistic understanding of the conference’s backdrop and its cultural nuances. These elements, often absent in virtual participation, infuse layers of depth into the learning process. The impact of international conference travel transcends the confines of the conference hall, offering a multifaceted experience that enriches both professional and personal growth. It serves as a catalyst for forging meaningful connections, fostering a broader comprehension of global perspectives, and embracing the transformative potency of diverse cultural viewpoints.

Conclusion

Beyond the conference sessions, COSCUP’s true essence lies in the connections forged, dialogues exchanged, and camaraderie nurtured within its corridors. It’s a collective journey that fuels personal evolution and transformation. The intricate tapestry of community engagement, well-being initiatives, and cultural immersion makes COSCUP an event that leaves an indelible mark.

As we contemplate the multifaceted nature of COSCUP, let’s acknowledge its distinctive blend of global perspectives, user-centric design and well-being advocacy. COSCUP transcends being just a tech event; it’s a platform that fosters connections, celebrates diversity, and sparks meaningful conversations that cross geographical boundaries. This is the true spirit of COSCUP – a narrative woven with threads of innovation, inclusivity and cross-cultural understanding.

The post <span class='p-name'>COSCUP Unveiled</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) continues to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Open Source at the best tech conferences from around the world, promoting Open Source software and fostering collaboration within the global community.

This past month, the OSI celebrated the anniversary in all corners of the world: at FOSSY in Portland, Oregon, at Open Source Congress in Geneva, Switzerland, at COSCUP in Taipei City, Taiwan and at Campus Party in Sao Paulo, Brazil.

Three key sessions celebrating Open Source at Campus Party Sao Paulo

The 15th edition of Campus Party Brazil received 100,000 visitors at the open arena and 25,000 attendees on July 25-30 in Sao Paulo, Latin America’s tech hub and financial center.

OSI’s board director and Campus Party ambassador Bruno Souza and OSI’s community manager Nick Vidal were on stage to talk about Open Source’s history and future. In this presentation, they covered the rich and interconnected history of the Free Software and Open Source movements. They later looked towards the future of Open Source in this new era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and imagined how the world would be if openness and collaboration prevailed.

Next, Alessandro de Oliveira Faria, co-founder of OITI, OpenSUSE’s ambassador, and Intel’s worldwide innovator, gave an outstanding presentation about generative AI using Open Source. He presented the transformers and diffusion architectures and later showcased the generation of text, image, audio and video.

Finally, Aline Deparis, co-founder and CEO of Privacy Tools, and Nick Vidal gave a keynote presentation about the future of AI. They highlighted the importance of Open Source models to help democratize AI, allowing anyone to study, adapt, contribute back, innovate, as well as build businesses on top of these foundations with full control and respect for privacy.

If you are interested in learning more about Open Source and AI, please join our “Deep Dive: Defining Open Source AI” series. CFPs for the online webinars are open and we are looking for proposals that discuss the importance of Open Source models and the impact of AI on society.

The post <span class='p-name'>Celebrating 25 years of Open Source at Campus Party</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

The Open Source Initiative is deep into a multi-stakeholder process to define machine learning systems that can be characterized as “Open Source.” 

About 40 people put their heads together for the first community discussion in an hour-long session I led at FOSSY 2023. 

If you missed it, there are still plenty of ways to get involved. Send a proposal to speak at the online webinar series before August 4, 2023 and check out the timeline for upcoming in-person workshops. Get caught up with the recap from the kickoff meeting, too.

Why data is the sticking point of machine learning

The session started with a short presentation highlighting why we need to define “open” in the AI context and why we need to do it now. 

Open Source gives users and developers the ability to decide for themselves how and where to use the technology without the need to engage with a third party. We want to get the same things for machine learning systems. We’ll need to find our way there.

First, we need to clarify that machine learning systems are a little different than classic software. For one, machine learning depends on data, lots of it. Developers can’t rely on just their own laptops and knowledge to build new AI systems. The legal landscape is also a lot more complicated than for pure software: Data is covered by a lot of different laws, often very different between countries.

After the initial meeting in San Francisco, it became clear that the most crucial question to ask (and try to answer) is around data. 

At the Portland session, I asked one simple question: 

How tightly coupled should the original data and the ML models be?

I started with the three pieces that go into a typical ML system:

1. Software for training and testing, inference and analysis
   For the crowd it was easy to agree that all software written by a human and copyrightable must be Open Source for a ML system to be considered open.
   
2. Model architecture with its weights and training parameters
   These should be made available with terms and conditions that don’t restrict who can use them and how they’re used; There also shouldn’t be restrictions on retraining the artifacts and redistributing them. The group wasn’t as clearly in agreement on this point but did concur that resolving this is within reach.
   
3. Raw data and prepared datasets, for training and testing
   I started with the assumption that the original dataset is not the preferred form for making modifications to model/weights and asked the group: Does that mean an “Open ML” can ignore the original data? How much of the original dataset do we need in order to exercise the right to modify a model?

This final question required people to get on the same page. Some AI developers in the room shared their views that the original dataset is not necessary to modify a model. They also stated that they would need a sufficiently precise description of the original data, though, and other elements. This would be necessary for technical reasons and for transparency, to evaluate bias, etc.

A few people took a different view, leaning more on the fact that data is somewhat equivalent to the source code of a model and the model is the binary, as if training was the equivalent of compilation. Some of their comments gave the impression that they were less familiar with developing ML systems.

Other participants explained why the analogy to software’s source-binary doesn’t hold water: A binary-only piece of software cannot be modified and in fact the GNU GPLv3 explains in detail the preferred methods of making modifications to software. On the contrary, AI models can be modified to be fine-tuned and retrained without the original dataset, if they’re accompanied by other elements.

During the session, folks were encouraged to contribute their thoughts on an Etherpad. Comments there touch on the cultural implications of public data, the importance of documenting data transparency and whether “open with restrictions” carve outs will be necessary when it comes to personal or health data.

What’s next

Remember: We want you to weigh in with a proposal to speak and invite you to participate in upcoming community workshops. 

For now,  we’ll leave you with this quote from the Portland session:

 “I think I’m coming to a position that AI maybe isn’t open without open data or a really good description of the data used (based on the “spigot” example), but that there will be a significant number of use cases that aren’t open, for various cultural reasons e.g. they may use other licenses, defined within those communities, but also aren’t the kind of extractive commercial stuff that invokes puking either. Open isn’t an exclusive synonym for ‘good’.”

Participants also debated on the legality of training models on copyrighted and trademarked data, and voiced concerns about the output of generative AI systems. 

We have a long road ahead and must move quickly – join us on this important journey.

The post <span class='p-name'>Takeaways from the “Defining Open AI” community workshop</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

OSI is pleased to see that Meta is lowering barriers for access to powerful AI systems. Unfortunately, the tech giant has created the misunderstanding that LLaMa 2 is “open source” – it is not. Even assuming the term can be validly applied to a large language model comprising several resources of different kinds, Meta is confusing “open source” with “resources available to some users under some conditions,” two very different things. We’ve asked them to correct their misstatement.

“Open Source” means software under a license with specific characteristics, defined by the Open Source Definition (OSD). Among other requirements, for a license to be Open Source, it may not discriminate against persons or groups or fields of endeavor (OSD points 5 and 6). Meta’s license for the LLaMa models and code does not meet this standard; specifically, it puts restrictions on commercial use for some users (paragraph 2) and also restricts the use of the model and software for certain purposes (the Acceptable Use Policy). 

Why Open Source matters

An Open Source license ensures that developers and users are able to decide for themselves how and where to use the technology without the need to engage with another party; they have sovereignty over the technology they use. Open Source is premised on the understanding that everyone gets to share no matter who you are. The commercial limitation in paragraph 2 of LLAMA COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT is contrary to that promise in the OSD. 

OSI does not question Meta’s desire to limit the use of Llama for competitive purposes, but doing so takes the license out of the category of “Open Source.”  

The OSD does not allow restrictions on field of use because you can’t know beforehand what can happen in the future, good or bad. That’s what allows the Linux kernel to become popular in medical devices as well as airplanes and rockets. 

But the Meta policy prohibits use in several areas that might be highly beneficial to society, such as regulated/controlled substances and use for critical infrastructure. Even something that sounds as simple as “you must follow the law” is problematic in practice.  What if the law in different places is inconsistent? What if the law is unjust?

Avoiding adding more confusion

The license for the Llama LLM is very plainly not an “Open Source” license. Meta is making some aspect of its large language model available to some, but not to everyone, and not for any purpose. OSI realizes how important it is to come to a shared understanding of what open means for AI systems. These are new human artifacts, much like software was a new creation of human intellect in the 70s. We’re running a series of events to craft a common definition of “open” in the AI context and we welcome submissions of ideas.

The post <span class='p-name'>Meta’s LLaMa 2 license is not Open Source</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

A few weeks ago I had the privilege of attending the Data + AI Summit in San Francisco. It was one of the best conferences I have attended for several reasons. The main one is that it reinforced my belief that Open Source models will play an important role in our everyday lives (it’s not just ChatGPT behind an API). I was able to witness first hand the power of Open Source and how it can spread across different domains, particularly AI. It was not just wishful thinking from my part, but something that’s actually taking shape at an accelerating pace. Here are the three things I learned while at Data + AI Summit: 

The Open Source community is huge 

The Data + AI Summit organized by Databricks brought in 12,000 attendees to the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco, plus 75,000 online participants. These are huge numbers, very much comparable with successful Open Source events like CloudNativeCon + KubeCon by the Linux Foundation.

I had the opportunity to talk with several attendees, all of whom were very enthusiastic about Open Source and AI. Many attendees are doing important work to advance the field, one such example is the members of Berkeley Artificial Intelligence Research (BAIR) who are uniting UC Berkeley researchers across various areas who are working on fundamental advances in computer vision, machine learning, natural language processing, planning, control, robotics and more.  The Summit brought together an interesting mix of Open Source developers, researchers and businesses.

There’s a high demand for Open Source models

Databricks, the company behind Apache Spark, is experiencing high demand for Open Source models from their existing client base, even more so than proprietary models. This was very surprising to learn, as it demonstrates that businesses are really looking to fully own their AI stack.

For this very reason, Databricks is betting big on Open Source models. A few months ago, they released Dolly 2.0, the first open, instruction-following large language model (LLM) for commercial use. At the Summit, CEO of Databricks Ali Ghodsi reaffirmed their commitment to promoting Open Source models as a path towards democratizing AI and, as part of this commitment, they announced the acquisition of MosaicML for $1.3 billion. MosaicML is known for its state-of-the-art MPT large language models. 

Open Source models have a huge potential

At the Summit, there were many interesting talks, including keynotes from high profile individuals like Satya Nadella, Marc Andreessen and Eric Schmidt. But, for me, the most interesting talks were the ones that demonstrated how Open Source LLMs have the potential to provide many benefits when compared to proprietary solutions, namely, more control, stronger privacy, reduced costs, better results and improved performance.

I was also amazed to see how Databricks was able to incorporate AI into their software. Until now, you had the option of using SQL or Python to interact with Apache Spark. But writing the right query or code can be challenging oftentimes. So I was delighted to watch the demos where they introduced English as the new programming language for interacting with Spark. As a user, by using plain English to explain what you want to accomplish, the AI-assistant was able to translate that into SQL or Python. This will make the software much more accessible and will increase the productivity of all users, from newbies to experts.

Final takeaways

Overall, attending the Data + AI Summit was a wonderful experience. It was great to connect with so many members of the Open Source community and share our enthusiasm for a brighter future, where Open Source models will play a key role in making our daily lives more productive and help us make sense of the ever growing data surrounding us. Additionally, Open Source models will enable individuals and businesses to take full ownership of their data and software. 

If you are interested in learning more about Open Source and AI, please join our “Deep Dive: Defining Open Source AI” series. CFPs for the online webinars are open and we are looking for proposals that discuss the importance of Open Source models and the impact of AI on society.

The post <span class='p-name'>Three takeaways from Data + AI Summit</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

The Open Source Initiative recently kicked off a multi-stakeholder process to define machine learning systems that can be characterized as “Open Source.” A long list of non-profit organizations, corporations and research groups have joined our call to find a common understanding of “open” principles applied to artificial intelligence (AI). 

A group of people who work at Mozilla Foundation, Creative Commons, Wikimedia Foundation, Internet Archive, Linux Foundation Europe, OSS Capital and OSI board members met recently in San Francisco to start framing the conversation. 

Participants, who were not representing their employers, included: Lila Bailey, Adam Bouhenguel, Gabriele Columbro, Heather Meeker, Daniel Nazer, Jacob Rogers, Derek Slater and Luis Villa. The OSI’s Executive Director Stefano Maffulli and board members Pam Chestek, Aeva Black, and Justin Colannino also weighed in during the four-hour afternoon meeting at Mozilla’s San Francisco headquarters.

As the legislators accelerate and the doomsayers chant, one thing is clear: It’s time to define what “open” means in this context before it’s defined for us. AI is a controversial term and, for right now, the conversation about what to call this “open” definition is ongoing.

We want you to get involved: Send a proposal to speak at the online webinar series before August 4, 2023 and check out the timeline for upcoming in-person workshops. Up next is the first community review in Portland at FOSSY. 

Why we’re in this together

This first small gathering aimed to set ground rules and create the first working document of a “Definition of AI systems” that reflect the Open Source values. 

The group brainstormed over 20 reasons for dedicating time on this milestone project. These included reducing confusion for policymakers, helping developers understand data sharing and transparency, reducing confusion for re-users and modifiers, creating a permission structure and fighting open washing.
A few in detail:

Good for business, good for the world 

Participants agreed there’s value in understanding which startups and technologies to invest in, based on their “open practices” and contributions to the community.

One participant commented, “The point is not that we need a definition [of open AI] for business. The point is we need a definition to identify people who are doing technology in a way that shares it with the world, and that is what is important. Even if companies fail, they’ve still given something to the world.”

Cracking the black box

The group was soundly divided on the tensions and tradeoffs around transparency in ML training data. There’s a huge question when it comes to the sausage making that is today’s AI systems – what goes in and what comes out? Who gets to see the ingredients? What data should be transparent – zip codes, for example – and what information should not be – single patient tumor scans? 

“When a private company creates private machine learning models, we have no idea what is forming or shaping those models, to the detriment of society as a whole,” one person commented. Another person added, “I’m very concerned about people blocking access to [their own personal financial or health care] data [that could be] used to train models because we’re going to get inherently biased…I hope that those designing the models are thinking long and hard about what data is important and valuable, especially if there are people saying ‘you shouldn’t use my medical data to train your model.’ That’s a very harmful road to go down.”

The value of openness

Open Source is about delivering users self-sovereignty in their software. Presumably an “Open AI” would be aimed at delivering self-sovereignty when it comes to use of and input into AI systems. Self-sovereignty is the reason field-of-use restrictions are forbidden in Open Source: Those imply requiring permission from a gatekeeper to proceed.

“Part of this work involves 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,” one participant said, adding that “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 – there’s an ongoing tension between something being open and being safe, or potentially harmful. 

“It is crucial to establish a document that not only offers a definition of openness but that also provides the necessary context to support it.”

Key debates

Participants generally agreed that the Definition of Open Source, drafted 25 years ago and maintained by the OSI, does not cover this new era. “This is not a software-only issue. It’s not something that can be solved by using the same exact terms as before,” noted one participant.

“Tensions” may have been the word to pop up most frequently in the course of the afternoon. The push-and-pull between best practices and formal requirements, what’s desirable in a definition versus what’s legally possible, the value of private data (e.g. healthcare) vs. reproducibility and transparency were just a few. 

Field-of-Use restrictions

Most participants felt that the new definition should not limit the scope of the user’s right to adopt the technology for a specific purpose. There have been a number of AI creators leaving projects over ethical concerns and a push for “responsible” licenses that restrict usage. 

“People are shortsighted in all the ways that matter,” one participant said, citing the example of Stable Diffusion’s ban on using the deep learning, text-to-image model for medical applications. “There are researchers who have figured out how to read the minds of people with locked-in syndrome, people who have figured out how to see mental imagery. And yet they can’t help these people and make their lives better because, technically, it’d be violating a license.” These researchers, for context, do not have the millions of dollars necessary to create a Stable Diffusion-type model from scratch, so the innovation is stalled. 

“With field-of-use restrictions, we’re depriving creators of these tools a way to affect positive outcomes in society,” another participant noted. 

While several participants noted their support for the intent behind ethical constraints, the consensus was that licenses are the wrong vehicle for enforcement.

Attribution requirements 

There was much talk about a “landscape of tradeoffs” around attribution requirements, too. In a discussion about data used to train models, participants said that requiring attribution may not be meaningful because there’s not a single author. Even though communities like Wikipedia care about acknowledging who wrote what, it doesn’t hold up in this context and the creators of automated AI tools already have ways of being recognized. The length and breadth of these supporting documents are also a factor in skipping these requirements. One group member pointed out that “attribution” for a dataset might result in a 300-million page PDF. “Completely useless. It would compress well, because most of it would be redundant.” 

This conversation dovetails with the tension between transparency and observability with requirements imposed by other regulations, like privacy and safety.

Get involved

This half-day discussion is only the beginning. Participants were well aware that the community will need more conversations and more collective thinking before finding a common ground. Send a proposal to speak at the online webinar series before August 4, 2023 and check out the timeline for upcoming in-person workshops. OSI members can also book time to chat with Executive Director Stefano Maffulli during office hours.

The post <span class='p-name'>Towards a definition of “Open Artificial Intelligence”: First meeting recap</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

SAN FRANCISCO – July 12, 2023 – The public policy team of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has launched the Open Policy Alliance (OPA), a new program aimed at building and supporting a coalition of underrepresented voices from public benefit and charitable foundations. The OPA, has been created in response to increased demand for public dialog and stakeholder engagement in the Open Source software community as well as adjacent areas such as open content, research, AI and data.

Open Source ecosystem veteran Deborah Bryant, OSI US policy director, will lead the program. “While Open Source is a global, borderless activity, public policies are developed locally,” said Bryant. “The OPA will focus on education in the US while exchanging and sharing information with like-minded organizations globally. The OPA seeks to empower these voices and enable them to actively participate in educating and informing US public policy decisions related to Open Source software, content, research and education.”

The need to create such a program is more urgent today due to the rise of new regulations in the software industry and adjacent open domains around the world. Cyber security, the societal impact of AI, data and privacy are important 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 the Open Source ecosystem works. Ensuring stakeholders without historic benefit of representation are included in those discussions becomes paramount to that end.

The OPA will focus on educating public policy makers on Open Source to inform their development and deliberation of new policy concepts. There are unintended consequences that come from a lack of understanding of how open collaboration works in practice. The OPA will address this as well as the historic absence of contribution from underrepresented groups. The interest areas of the OPA community will complement those of Digitable Public Goods Alliance, a UNICEF multi-stakeholder initiative with a mission to accelerate the attainment of sustainable development goals in low- and middle-income countries that OSI joined earlier this year.

Quotes from founding organizations of the OPA

“Open Source has changed the way we build software and the way the world interacts with technology for the better,” said Deb Nicholson, executive director, Python Software Foundation. “Now more than ever, policy makers need to hear from community-driven Open Source projects about how policy changes will affect developers, users and the future of collaboration. We’re glad the Open Source Initiative is bringing charitable foundations together to help provide that expertise.” 

“Open Source is in danger as the regulatory landscape around software is evolving,” said Thierry Carrez, general manager of the Open Infrastructure Foundation. “Who better than the OSI to gather and amplify the voices of the community’s Open Source organizations so that everyone can participate in that discussion? As an affiliate organization of the OSI, the OpenInfra Foundation is proud to join the OPA and increase our collaboration around such a timely initiative, as it complements work we already have underway with our hubs in Europe and Asia.”

“Open@RIT is honored to have been invited to join the OPA as a founding organization. We began teaching our students and faculty to become FOSS contributors and release their academic and research work in the open for 15 years,” said Stephen Jacobs, director. “During that time, the majority of our efforts have centered on supporting humanitarian and civic projects with organizations such as UNICEF, the New York state government and project communities like P5JS and Csound.  Because of the wide diversity of practices in these types of communities, it’s been challenging to put a representative voice out there that addresses their common needs; particularly around infrastructure and support for the communities that drive the technology forward and keep it stable. The OPA looks to fill that need. We’ve worked with Deb Bryant for over a decade and are pleased to hear that she’ll bring her wide and deep understanding of FOSS across the not-for-profit and for-profit worlds to the organization.”

“As advocates for digital openness, OpenForum Europe recognizes the opportunity presented by the Open Policy Alliance to give more voices and ideas a platform in digital policy development,” said Astor Nummelin Carlberg, executive director.  “We stand ready to share our knowledge and collaborate with like-minded organizations globally. This effort not only underscores the significance of Open Source in our interconnected world, but also the imperative for informed and inclusive policy making.”

“The FreeBSD Foundation is excited to participate in the OPA and thanks OSI for taking this initiative. Open Source has become ubiquitous, with one code-scanning company finding that 96% of ALL codebases contain Open Source,” said Deb Goodkin, executive director. “This means that securing and maintaining Open Source is necessary to securing our digital infrastructure. However, Open Source is not unitary. Much Open Source is corporate-backed, but many projects, such as FreeBSD, are community-driven. It is vital that policy makers understand the differences in these models in order to ensure that policies result in the desired outcomes.”

Public benefit and charitable foundations with an interest in Open Source software, content, research and education are encouraged 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. Founding organizations of the Open Policy Alliance include the non-profit organizations:

• Apereo Foundation
• FreeBSD Foundation
• open@RIT
• OpenInfra Foundation
• Plone Foundation
• Python Software Foundation
• Associazione LibreItalia
• The Document Foundation
• Eclipse Foundation
• KDE Foundation
• OpenForum Europe
• Open Source Hong Kong
• OpenStreetMap Foundation

OSI Executive Director Stefano Maffulli will discuss the global policy landscape and the role the OPA will play in it at FOSSY 2023 in Portland, Ore on July 15th. For more information about the OPA visit its web page.

The post <span class='p-name'>Convening public benefit and charitable foundations working in open domains</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

Traduit en français.

It’s good news that the European Commission is now considering the value and needs of Open Source in its policy deliberations. What’s not as good is that it does so through the wrong lens. The Commission needs to extend its consultations, Expert Groups and other work to include and consider the fourth sector.

Post-industrial society comprises three sectors in the worldview undergirding the European Union:

• The commercial sector includes industrial, extractive, service, logistic and administrative companies. They are represented by industry and trade associations, by consulting and lobbying companies and more.
• The labor sector includes workers of all kinds – industrial, skilled, research, educational, managerial, entrepreneurial and more. They are represented by trade unions, professional bodies, guilds and more.
• The consumer sector comprises everyone spending their personal wealth at all scales. They are represented by consumer associations, civil society organizations, religious organizations and more.

Internet changed everything

But the internet has driven change over the last 50 years from which has arisen the World Wide Web and hence the Open Source movement, which in turn have catalyzed many open culture movements related to technologies. The wave of open has produced many phenomena – good, bad and pending judgment – including the gig economy, open knowledge communities like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive, technology giants like Facebook and Google, open software stacks and supply chains and much, much more. The roles people play in this open wave do not fit comfortably into the three post-industrial sectors. 

For example, an individual would be expected predominantly to fall within the consumer sector, with a section of their life represented in the labor sector. But an Open Source developer can be innovating and creating soft goods (commercial sector) which are assembled (commercial sector) or used (consumer sector) by others. A video streamer may be creating new copyrighted works of great value (commercial sector) that are widely viewed (consumer sector). An author or musician can now create their own compelling brand without becoming an employee of a publisher. 

The fourth sector lacks representation

This introduces a new fourth sector. It comprises individuals, often connected and facilitated by ad-hoc or charitable communities, playing the roles of the commercial, labor and consumer sectors in varying mixes all at the same time. The fourth sector is poorly represented by the entities and roles associated with all three of the other sectors. That’s inevitable; each fourth sector role will fuse together an aspect represented and an aspect confronted by any of the entities and roles dedicated to the three traditional sectors. 

This means that a consumer association won’t advocate well for Open Source developers because an aspect of their existence is classified as commercial. A streamer won’t be well represented by a trade union because they embody both consumer and commercial aspects. And so on. As a result, existing consultation mechanisms used by legislators are guaranteed to fail. When they try to deal with Open Source by expressing the understanding they have gained of proprietary software, they will keep causing collateral damage — as we have seen in the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and many times previously. The need will increase as regulation tries to control, account for or promote the activities of the fourth sector without consulting it. 

One significant reason this has been happening for such a long time already is the lack of a term to use to raise the issue. That’s why I am proposing to call this sector of European society the “fourth sector.” It extends well beyond Open Source, covering any new, citizen-centric economic activity which is hard to have represented with only the existing commercial, labor and consumer lenses. Let’s tell the Commission and other governments that it’s time to care about the fourth sector, which is the driving force for all the changes they want to embrace — or control.

This article first appeared on Webmink in draft.

The post <span class='p-name'>Modern EU policies need the voices of the fourth sector</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

Currently there is no Open Source common interface for document databases, but FerretDB is driving forward with a goal to change that. The founders of FerretDB, an Open Source document database using PostgreSQL as the database backend, is working with different stakeholders on developing a standard for document databases, the same way as SQL was created as a standard for relational databases in the 1980s, with the objective of reducing the risk of vendor lock-in for users.

Coming from long backgrounds in Open Source, founders Aleksei Palazhchenko, Peter Zaitsev and Peter Farkas believe that standards and definitions are imperative to the survival of Open Source, which is why FerretDB is a strong supporter of OSI. They also see vendor lock-in as a real danger, one that can result in extremely costly migrations if a user chose to move their data from a proprietary service to an Open Source one. At present, MongoDB is the default choice for document databases, but when it switched from Affero General Public License (AGPL) to Server Side Public License (SSPL) license in 2018, these Open Source veterans felt that the move introduced limits in choice, competition and innovation, and they knew something had to be done about it.

FerretDB was started in 2021 to be an Open Source alternative to MongoDB. The founders support the OSI authority over what is and is not Open Source, and the SSPL license MongoDB moved to is not an OSI-approved license. The SSLP license allows cloud providers to offer MongoDB as a service, but it requires those providers to pay a licensing fee. What may have been designed to protect MongoDB from infrastructure providers who don’t contribute back to the project also limits the user, and can no longer be considered Open Source.

With an allegiance to true Open Source and a commitment to preserving the integrity of Open Source for future generations, FerretDB was established under the OSI-approved Apache 2.0 license. It was built on top of PostgreSQL, an existing Open Source database that has a strong and active community. This choice was made because starting a new database from the ground up could take ten years to build and add the required depth of functionality, not to mention the trust of users.

Additionally, the Document Database Community was created with the aim of getting all document database vendors, experts and users together. The community holds monthly webinars to foster communication and form connections among stakeholders.

“We think that open source is in danger as more and more companies are trying to redefine Open Source, with licenses such as BSL or SSPL,” said Farkas. “We sponsor OSI because we believe that OSI is the point of reference when it comes to the definition of Open Source, and it should stay this way. OSI’s approach is helping to move the industry forward.”

FerretDB is a VC-funded company, so its founders are interested in making a profit through service, support, and as-a-service options But, the product itself will always be free. FerretDB released FerretDB 1.0 earlier this year, the first version which is capable of running MongoDB workloads and supporting MongoDB tools. Features continue to be added based on the requests of the community. FerretDB-as-a-service is available on the European infrastructure provider, Scaleway, as well as on Civo with plans for enterprise-level support in the future.

If you would like to participate in the development of document database standards, you can share your input at www.documentdatabase.org.

The post <span class='p-name'>Open Source shaking up document databases, setting new standards</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

On behalf of the Open Source Initiative and the public policy team,  I’m very pleased to share early news of our new educational program – one aimed at building and supporting a coalition of underrepresented voices from public benefit and charitable foundations. This new program – the Open Policy Alliance – seeks to empower these voices and enable them to actively  participate in educating and informing US public policy decisions related to Open Source software, content, research, and education.  The OPA is created in response to increased demand for public dialog and stakeholder engagement in these adjacent and related “open domains”.

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 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.

The post <span class='p-name'>Open Policy Alliance: A new program to amplify underrepresented voices in public policy development</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

OSI submitted its comments to the United States Patent and Trademark Office to defend Open Source from patent trolls. A few days ago the Linux Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation and Unified Patents asked for the community to send their comments.

Below is the text of the letter we sent.

June 16, 2023
Katherine K. Vidal
Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property
and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office
United States Patent and Trademark Office
600 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314-5796

Dear Director Vidal,

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a California 501(c)(3) public charity advocating for and enabling the benefits of open source (community developed and maintained) software in the interests of every citizen. It does not advocate on behalf of any for-profit entity or any political group.

We very much appreciate that the USPTO has provided the opportunity for input on this important matter in advance of the formal rulemaking process. OSI is writing in particular to provide information for your consideration regarding the use of third-party entities to challenge patents.

The oversight of each open source project is usually in the hands of an unincorporated association of individual contributors, or a dedicated public charity (like OSI’s 80+ Affiliate members). Many of the leaders in these communities are entrepreneurs leading small businesses. Open source projects use OSI-approved licenses, which openly convey all rights necessary to use, improve, share and otherwise enjoy the software without any necessary relationship with its rights holders. As such, no open source project depends on patents and communities rarely tolerate royalty-due elements, preferring to design without any encumbered parts.

Open source projects and their maintainers are uniquely vulnerable to attack by hostile parties such as patent trolls (sometimes called “non-practicing entities”) and companies rent-seeking over so-called standard-essential patents. The projects and their non-profit fiduciary hosts are not of a scale to be able to manage the usual defenses of large corporations, while the individuals themselves may seem worthwhile targets for avaricious litigators. When a project faces a patent attack, it is thus frequently defended by others as a matter of civic duty.

The rule changes that the Patent and Trademark Office propose would greatly limit the ability of open source projects to be defended by these third parties. This would both chill the innovation and progress arising from open source software – which contributes billions to GDP – as well as embolden malicious litigators seeking reward where they have no claim simply because their victim is unable to defend themselves.

OSI consequently encourages the USPTO to reconsider these rule changes and avoid the harm they would cause open source software.

Your sincerely,

Stefano Maffulli
Executive Director
Open Source Initiative

Open Source Initiative is a 501(c)(3) corporation (EIN:  91-2037395).

The post <span class='p-name'>OSI’s comments to US Patent and Trademark Office</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.

Open Future conducted a study to gain a better understanding of the current state of the open movement, as seen through the eyes of people actively involved in its endeavors and leading organizations within the movement. Open Future believes that a shared movement identity and a shared advocacy agenda can make the collective effort stronger. This study aimed to see whether this perspective is shared and whether it can form a basis for building a shared movement agenda for the decades to come.

With this study, Open Future was interested in identifying trends that transform the movement and understanding the challenges and needs of activists and organizations as these changes occur.

They also set out to understand how and whether the open movement can be perceived as a whole. There have been studies and reports focused on a single field of openness, such as Open Access or Open Data, but relatively few attempts to understand this broader activist space. This most recent study focused on a qualitative survey of open movement leaders.

The report, which you can read in its entirety here, can be summarized into sections:

Speaking with open movement leaders

Most interviewees reported learning of the open movement through participation in copyright reform activism and policy. Others were introduced through:

• Open Source and Open Hardware activism
• Open Knowledge, Open Access, Open Education, or Open Data activism
• Community-building work
• Their employers, entering the field with no previous activist background

Open Activism as a social movement

Open Future proposed the following working definition for the open movement:

The open movement consists of people, communities, and organizations who (1) contribute to shared resources online that are available for everyone to use and reuse, (2) and/or advocate for non-exclusive access and use of information resources.

However, although the research project began with the assumption that there is an open movement which can be defined and whose boundaries can be traced, the interviews found that there is little collective sense of such a movement. Moreso, there is a collective sense of the open movement as a loose network, tied together by value alignment.

The open movement, at a turning point as seen by its leaders

This section shows how the movement is shifting. Interviewees have been observing changes, and argue for further change. Open Future analyzed these shifts in four categories:

1. The people
2. The zeitgeist
3. The world
4. The sustainability of the open movement

The need for change

Factors both internal and external to the movement were identified in the study. Collectively, the following needs were revealed:

• Need for new voices
• Need for new narratives
• Need for relevance
• Need for maintenance

Ways forward

To address these needs, those interviewed resonated strongly with two ways forward:

1. A shared agenda
2. Advocacy as a driver for collective action

You can download a full copy of the report at this link: https://openfuture.eu/publication/shifting-tides/

You can provide feedback directly in the publication here or by writing to Alek Tarkowski at alek@openfuture.eu.

Images created by Open Future.

The post <span class='p-name'>Digital activists and open movement leaders share their perspective with Open Future in new research report, “Shifting tides: the open movement at a turning point”</span> appeared first on Voices of Open Source.