# \[bug\] OSAID RC1 still mentions the freedom to study

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/bug-osaid-rc1-still-mentions-the-freedom-to-study/635>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Created:** [October 4, 2024, 7:01pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/bug-osaid-rc1-still-mentions-the-freedom-to-study/635 "2024-10-04T19:01:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![gvlx](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/gvlx/32/381_2.png) [@gvlx](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/gvlx)\
**Post date:** [October 6, 2024, 5:23pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/bug-osaid-rc1-still-mentions-the-freedom-to-study/635/2 "2024-10-06T17:23:46Z")

</div>

> [@Shamar](#):
>
> it was **a political decision** taken by OSI board long before the “co-design” process was designed to justify such decision.

That is my impression too.

As in the comment below, **the fear of “be deemed ineffective” is real.**

> [@Open Source to require documentation for the first time for AI?](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/open-source-to-require-documentation-for-the-first-time-for-ai/638/5):
>
> These are very valid concerns and it seems to me to be the main motivation for OSI Board push for a final version in October. However, I would prefer we could reach some [“Rough consensus”](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc7282), which will require new neutral moderators on this forum. Given all that has been said, there should be an effort to bring together stakeholders (which includes communities and enterprises) discussing the details on the [checklist](https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-checklist-draft-v-0-0-9) and the [FAQ](https://web.archive.org/web/20240921121938/https://opensource.org/deepdive/drafts/the-open-source-ai-definition-faq-draft-v-0-0-9) during open sessions.

And, as I believe it was again reinforced in the last townhall and it was probably written elsewhere, the OSI board is also concerned that **a too strict definition might lend itself to an “empty set” of OSAID-compliant Ai systems**.

I would argue that:

- _firstly_, **we do not abdicate of our principles** , and,
- _secondly_, we invite all those stakeholders to see how they could approach their systems onto to our definitions and **carve out a compromise which does not taint our ideas**.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/bug-osaid-rc1-still-mentions-the-freedom-to-study/635)._