# Open-washing and unspoken assumptions of OSS

**URL:** <https://discuss.opensource.org/t/open-washing-and-unspoken-assumptions-of-oss/515>\
**Category:** Open Source AI\
**Created:** [August 22, 2024, 2:47pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/open-washing-and-unspoken-assumptions-of-oss/515 "2024-08-22T14:47:01Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 4

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pranesh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/e36b37/32.png) [@pranesh](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/pranesh)\
**Post date:** [August 27, 2024, 1:46pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/open-washing-and-unspoken-assumptions-of-oss/515/4 "2024-08-27T13:46:39Z")

</div>

> [@kjetilk](#):
>
> I think it would be a good idea to speak the unspoken, perhaps to say that the governance of open-source AI is out of scope for OSAID, and that one should not have an expectation that all or even most forms of open-washing will be addressed by the definition.

Given that neither the [OSD](https://opensource.org/osd) nor the [free software definition](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms) talk about governance models being out of scope for the definitions of “open source software” or “free software”, I don’t really see the need to explicitly spell that out in the definition of “open source AI”.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/open-washing-and-unspoken-assumptions-of-oss/515)._