# Concerns and feedback on anchoring on the Model Openness Framework **URL:** \ **Category:** Open Source AI\ **Created:** [June 12, 2024, 6:41pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/concerns-and-feedback-on-anchoring-on-the-model-openness-framework/393 "2024-06-12T18:41:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 2
**Author:** ![shujisado](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/shujisado/32/230_2.png) [@shujisado](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/shujisado)\ **Post date:** [June 13, 2024, 2:29pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/concerns-and-feedback-on-anchoring-on-the-model-openness-framework/393/2 "2024-06-13T14:29:40Z")
> [@amcasari](#): > > - While the paper itself outlines broadly how this framework comes together, the authors have a distinct opinion on the kinds of IP law they determine to apply to each kind of component (and whether or not one actually does). The current part of OSAID that relies on the MOF is only the classification of components. As I understand it, OSAID does not depend on the IP laws that should be applied to each component as stated in the MOF paper, but rather considers the legal framework that should be applied based on the OSD. I am a Japanese living in Japan, and in this forum, I am discussing based on Japanese law. Japan has a different intellectual property law system from both US and EU laws, but I feel that the discussions are consistent by basing them on the OSD. > [@amcasari](#): > > - The Framework as presented does not align easily or readily with current releasing and sharing practices amongst developers of all levels. Is your claim that the classification of components by the MOF is not suitable for the purposes of OSAID? --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/concerns-and-feedback-on-anchoring-on-the-model-openness-framework/393)._