# Why and how to certify Open Source AI **URL:** \ **Category:** Open Source AI\ **Created:** [May 18, 2024, 3:48pm UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/why-and-how-to-certify-open-source-ai/349 "2024-05-18T15:48:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 10
**Author:** ![stefano](https://yyz1.discourse-cdn.com/flex011/user_avatar/discuss.opensource.org/stefano/32/4_2.png) [@stefano](https://discuss.opensource.org/u/stefano)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2024, 10:20am UTC](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/why-and-how-to-certify-open-source-ai/349/10 "2024-06-26T10:20:05Z")
Let’s put more thoughts in this thread since there were some news last week that may inform the conversation. > [@zack](#): > > I think the need from “certifying” an AI system as OSAID compliant or not will emerge primarily from the following situation. The definition is not, and will never be, completely unambiguous. The concept of “preferred form to make modifications” in the OSAID leaves some space to interpretation but so does the OSD and the Free Software Definition, both have been object of furious debates to interpret corner cases (if interested, read the debates that [CAL](https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-December/004455.html) generated, spanning many months). In practice and for the examples we’ve seen so far, it’s fairly easy to spot an Open Source AI by generalizing the examples of Pythia, OLMo, LLM360 and BigScience’s models (if they change their licenses.) By looking at the results of the validation and @amcasari’s [comment](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/initial-report-on-definition-validation/368/5) the issue is not much in the ambiguous terms on the Definition and understanding what the preferred form to make modifications is. The issue seems to be more in the Checklist below, and how difficult it is to find the required components for someone that is not the original developer. This problem is felt also by the Linux Foundation, which the Checklist is based on. To address it, the LF released last week the MOF Tool [https://mot.isitopen.ai/](https://mot.isitopen.ai/). This tool allows the original developers of AI systems to add links to the components of their systems and their licenses. @lf_matt_white can explain better how that works internally. This has the potential of becoming an industry standard, given the size of the LF. We already adapted the Model Openness Framework to the Open Source AI Definition, so I can imagine that the OSAID compliance could become an overlay of the MOF, displayed on the tool or somewhere else where it matters. Does anybody want to play with the MOF tool and the OSAID? I’m happy to provide support. But there could also be other frameworks (like [Mozilla’s model](https://assets.mofoprod.net/network/documents/Towards_a_Framework_for_Openness_in_Foundation_Models.pdf)), too like @amcasari asked [Concerns and feedback on anchoring on the Model Openness Framework](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/concerns-and-feedback-on-anchoring-on-the-model-openness-framework/393). > [@zack](#): > > As soon as two parties will disagree on the OSAID compliance of a system, people will want a judge of sorts. That’s to be expected but we don’t know what the future of AI looks like… Today I can see one reason for a model to show compliance to the Open Source AI Definition: > [@Mark](#): > > I think the issue of certification may also come up in relation to the EU AI Act. After all, this act puts legal weight on the term “open source” _and_ provides open source systems with certain exemptions This! One of the reason for OSI to start this process is exactly to be able to offer a reference for policy makers, one Definition supported by a large variety of interest groups and maintained by a neutral group. Hopefully we’ll get one on time. On licenses: > [@Alek\_Tarkowski](#): > > The conversation on this forum has focused on issues related to systems and their compliance with OSAID. I think that all this points to the need to reach consensus on licenses themselves. I tend to agree: the OSI License Committee hasn’t been asked if they intend to start evaluating licenses for data and datasets, for documentation and ultimately terms/covenants/agreements/contracts for model parameters. We should ask them to do now… Anybody wants to open a separate thread? --- _[View the full topic](https://discuss.opensource.org/t/why-and-how-to-certify-open-source-ai/349)._