Folks, one of the problems I think that we’re encountering when discussing certification is the question of what is being certified.
A lot of the discussion to date implies that an actual, running system as installed – for example, the instance of ChatGPT4 available on OpenAI.com – would be certified as Open Source or not.
This seems wrong. Also, highly impractical.
I suggest instead that we should be focused entirely on certifying distributions. That is, specific packages of installable AI systems that users can download and deploy. Just like standard software, it’s not someone else’s deployment of software is open source or not, it’s the packages/files/git repo they offer instead.
I’ve been trying to figure out where this clarification would go in the Definition, and there is no clear space; the current draft doesn’t have the “make available” language that earlier drafts did, which would have been a place to insert it.
1 Like
Hmm, I interpret the current OSAID as effectively targeting the “distribution” you are advocating for.
I am not an expert in US law, but I understand that Open Source licenses grant permissions regarding the rights of reproduction, the creation of derivative works, distribution, and public performance as defined by US copyright law. In my interpretation, the “freedom to Share” in OSAID means a broad permission concerning the right of public performance and distribution. Interpreting it this way means that OSAID seeks freedom for all aspects of copyright.
The distribution rights under U.S. copyright law include various rights such as sale, transfer, rental, export/import, communication to the public, and making available for transmission, among others. The general meaning of “distribution” is included in these rights, and I believe this freedom is defined as the “freedom to Share”.
However, since I am not a native English speaker, I am not sure if my interpretation of “Share” is legally correct.
Shujisado,
Thanks for your response! Language is hard. In my post above, I’m using the term “distribution” as a noun, rather than as a verb. As in “a distribution” meaning a collection of files intended for download.
Your reply does suggest that we need a different word for that, since if it confused you it will confuse others. I’m just not sure what that word is.
In any case, my point is that we can certify as open source the packages/files/whatever that is offered for download, not the software that anyone is running on their cloud. Does that make more sense now?