# The Open Source(ish) AI Definition (OSAID) **URL:** \ **Category:** Open Source AI\ **Created:** [September 23, 2024, 6:09pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/the-open-source-ish-ai-definition-osaid/580 "2024-09-23T18:09:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 3
**Author:** ![anon18632855](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dfb087/32.png) [@anon18632855](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/anon18632855)\ **Post date:** [September 24, 2024, 3:24am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/the-open-source-ish-ai-definition-osaid/580/3 "2024-09-24T03:24:02Z")
> [@shujisado](#): > > I believe the decision to release OSAID 1.0 is up to the OSI Board of Directors, and RC1, which is the preceding stage, has not yet been published. Wouldn’t it be better to reconsider once RC1 is released? At the very least, there have been several discussions about handling datasets, which you are concerned about, so I suspect there will be some reflections of these in the RC1 version. I’m not expecting more than the [shifting of deck chairs](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/draft-v-0-0-9-of-the-open-source-ai-definition-is-available-for-comments/513/27) between 0.0.9 and RC1, and I expect the endorsers will be announced at the same time — a pointless metric if there ever was one. Indeed, I imagine @Mer is already putting the finishing touches on her “Defining Open Source AI” presentation at [Nerdearla](https://nerdear.la/en/agenda/) 17:15-17:50 this Thursday, and I’m just hoping we can decide instead to measure twice and cut once on this given the damage we’re about to do to our cause. It’s not yet too late for us to examine the specific issue of data closer, with a view to producing a higher quality deliverable. Developing an Open Source AI operating system, it is of great concern that we’re going to be lumped in the same bucket as “toxic candy” that does nothing to protect the 4 freedoms, which is why lining up this own goal constitutes a hair-on-fire emergency for us (and should for you). > [@shujisado](#): > > Just to confirm, you’ve linked to a version of ML-Policy.rst from five years ago—is this intentional? Yes, I deliberately deep-linked to the 5-year old revision to show that one guy managed to achieve in his definition of Free Models what has escaped us after 17 town halls and who knows how many other meetings. I also linked to the current version which eliminates the “Sourceless” model, analogous to the “D-” quadrant @quaid proposed in another thread. > [@shujisado](#): > > At present, there aren’t any major differences between the Debian policy (I assume this ML policy is unofficial?) and OSAID, but it’s true that Debian’s policy is more detailed. It may be worth studying their policy a bit more. > > What do you think, @zack -san? Yes, it’s unofficial, but it reflects the reality that [Debian won’t distribute AI models any time soon](https://deepdive.opensource.org/podcast/why-debian-wont-distribute-ai-models-any-time-soon/). Which is fine, and better than compromising on our principles (i.e., the DFSG). OSAID in its current form is more analogous to the Toxic Candy models “trained from unknown, private, or non-free datasets or simulators”, as it does not require data. For many/most models today this is not entirely different from distributing a recipe that requires unicorn eggs, and about as useful too from an Open Source perspective. --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/the-open-source-ish-ai-definition-osaid/580)._