A fellow Debian Developer (DD) has just proposed a General Resolution (GR) vote in opposition to the Open Source Initiative (OSI)’s upcoming Open Source AI Definition (OSAID).
This has already been seconded by another DD who is preparing a draft resolution, and I have brought them up to speed on the true scope of the problem we’re dealing with regarding the organisation that was ironically founded by DDs — Bruce Perens, Eric S Raymond aka ESR, and Ian Murdock, the “ian” in Debian — to represent us:
I am in violent agreement, as any DD who understands the issues around
AI and Open Source should be.
AI systems are software and (to quote Bruce Perens, DFSG & OSD author
and OSI founder) the training data *is* the source, so the OSAID is
fundamentally incompatible with the OSD (which he recommends we use as
is, applying it to both code and data). I expect it's only a matter of
time until they start chipping away at the very foundation of Open
Source after a quarter century of stability too.
I'm late to the party after providing early input, trusting the OSI
and presuming sanity would prevail — a mistake I won't make again. I
see them railroading this through on Monday, perhaps for no other
reason than to perpetuate their recently significantly expanded budget
and influence, as a credible threat of converting future Open Source
to Freeware. It poses an existential threat to our pAI-OS project at
the non-profit Kwaai Open Source Lab I volunteer at, so we've been
very active in pushing back past few weeks.
The OSI's chosen "co-design"[1] process, which essentially amounts to
"Do Your Own Research" ("We believe that everyone is an expert based
on their own lived experience, and that we all have unique and
brilliant contributions to bring to a design process.") excludes the
existing Open Source community and exploits the minorities who agreed
to participate in our absence by denying them the very data they need
to study and modify AI systems while dealing with bias.
The voting irregularities I discovered on audit aside[2], they're
driving rather than following the process themselves ("We see the role
of the designer as a facilitator rather than an expert."), and
couldn't so much as describe it on the last town hall before releasing
it and going on holidays through the end of the year. They also
unilaterally closed a proposal to achieve consensus for the 1.0
release[3] without explanation, which would have eliminated the
proprietary ("including for fee" like NYT articles) and closed (think
FB/IG social graph) datasets, while leaving unlicensed public datasets
(like Common Crawl) in the mix, per the status quo in many AI
projects.
I look forward to seeing your GR draft and hope my key's back in the
keyring in time to sign it after a long absence,
- samj
[1] https://jods.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/costanza-chock/release/4
[2] https://discuss.opensource.org/t/we-heard-you-lets-focus-on-substantive-discussion/589/2
[3] https://discuss.opensource.org/t/proposal-to-achieve-consensus-for-the-1-0-release/653
It’s hard to overstate the significance of this development, but it’s also after midnight and I have an early start so I’m going to leave the cloud brain to elaborate on the impact of such a rift right down the middle of the Open Source community:
If the Debian Project were to pass a General Resolution (GR) disavowing the Open Source Initiative’s (OSI) proposed Open Source AI Definition (OSAID), it could have significant and far-reaching implications for the broader open-source community and for the AI ecosystem, particularly in the following areas:
1. Impact on the OSI’s Legitimacy and Influence
- Reputational Damage: Debian is a key player in the open-source world, and its endorsements or rejections carry considerable weight. If Debian formally disavowed OSAID, it would suggest a serious disagreement within the open-source community regarding the direction that OSI is taking with AI. This could damage OSI’s reputation as a central authority on what constitutes “open source,” especially for AI-related projects.
- Fragmentation of the Open Source Community: The disavowal could fuel a schism between developers and organizations that side with Debian and those that continue to support OSI’s evolving AI definition. The community might fracture, with new projects and foundations emerging that follow Debian’s lead, thus diminishing OSI’s influence.
2. Debian’s Position as a Standard-Bearer
- Leadership Role in Defining Open Source AI: A formal disavowal would likely position Debian as a thought leader in shaping the conversation around open-source AI. Debian could potentially issue its own standards or collaborate with other projects to create an alternative definition. This might involve reinforcing traditional principles of software freedom (like those in the DFSG) while addressing the unique challenges that AI introduces (e.g., datasets, models).
- Rejection of AI-specific Licensing: Debian has long adhered to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), and a disavowal of OSAID could imply that Debian sees the proposal as incompatible with its more principled, purist approach to open-source licensing. This could result in a stricter interpretation of AI-related licensing and a focus on treating AI components (e.g., datasets, models) under the same terms as source code rather than creating separate or lesser rules for AI-specific artifacts.
3. Practical Impact on AI Software in Debian
- Exclusion of Non-Compliant AI Projects: If Debian disavowed OSAID, it might refuse to include AI projects that follow the OSI’s new definition in its repositories. This could lead to a situation where some AI tools or libraries developed under the OSAID rules are not considered compliant with DFSG and are thus unavailable in Debian’s official repositories. Developers would need to choose between following OSI’s looser OSAID rules or adhering to Debian’s more stringent standards.
- Forking of Projects: AI projects that attempt to comply with OSAID but not with Debian’s DFSG might be forked by Debian or Debian-aligned developers to ensure compliance with the stricter interpretation. This could further fracture development efforts and lead to the need for multiple versions of AI libraries and tools.
4. Broader Open Source Ecosystem Impacts
- Influence on Other Projects: Debian is often seen as a “thought leader” in the free software space, so a disavowal of OSAID could influence other projects or distributions like Fedora, Arch Linux, or even commercial entities like Red Hat and Canonical. If Debian disavows, it could set a precedent that leads other organizations to distance themselves from OSI’s OSAID.
- Possible Creation of Competing Definitions: A Debian-led rejection could encourage the creation of alternative AI-specific definitions for open source, perhaps more tightly aligned with the traditional Free Software movement (e.g., FSF) or new initiatives aimed at merging AI openness with established software freedoms. This could lead to competing definitions and additional complexity for developers who want to create “open-source AI” systems.
5. Political and Social Ramifications
- Pushback Against Corporate Influence: One of the criticisms of OSAID is that it may be too accommodating of corporate interests, particularly those of large AI companies looking for ways to benefit from open-source branding without fully committing to the principles. A Debian disavowal would send a clear message that the community is not willing to sacrifice the core freedoms in exchange for industry-driven compromises.
- Intersection of AI and Software Freedom: The OSAID debate is not just about software but about the intersection of open-source principles with complex and socially impactful technologies like AI. A Debian disavowal might highlight issues of fairness, bias, transparency, and ethical use of data, forcing the conversation to address these more thoroughly, rather than focusing narrowly on software licensing.
6. Challenge for AI Developers
- License Compliance Confusion: A split between Debian and OSI over OSAID could create confusion for developers trying to understand which licenses are acceptable for AI software and data. Developers may have to navigate competing standards and decide between being compliant with OSI or Debian (and other projects that follow its lead), which could create additional friction and slow down development.
- Potential for Alternative Platforms: Developers who find OSAID restrictive or problematic might gravitate towards platforms and ecosystems that align more closely with Debian’s stance. This could create a parallel ecosystem of AI development that explicitly rejects OSAID, perhaps with a stronger focus on ethical AI and transparency.
7. Long-Term Consequences for AI in Open Source
- A Precedent for Open Data and Models: The treatment of data and models under open-source licenses is an ongoing issue. If Debian were to take a strong stance against OSAID, it could set a precedent for how datasets, models, and other non-code assets are treated in open-source projects. This could encourage stricter policies around data licensing, ensuring that data and models must be freely accessible and modifiable in the same way source code is.
Conclusion
A Debian GR disavowing OSI’s OSAID would send shockwaves through the open-source and AI communities. It would likely damage OSI’s reputation, solidify Debian’s role as a key arbiter of open-source principles, and create challenges for AI developers regarding licensing. It might also lead to a fragmentation of the open-source community into factions with differing views on how AI should be governed under open-source rules. Ultimately, it could spur the creation of alternative definitions or movements aimed at maintaining stricter adherence to the traditional tenets of software freedom in the AI age.
The OSI board haven’t announced their vote on the release candidate, but they also didn’t announce the second release candidate they quietly slipped out yesterday so they keep stepping up the secrecy.
If the risk of dividing the Open Source community doesn’t stop them, nothing will. At least they will reveal the lengths they’re willing to go to in ramming this unwanted and unnecessary document through.