Mention the four freedoms

Open Source Definition
,
1

While we are at it, what about an explicit mention of the four freedoms in the OSD introduction?

2 Likes
2

This is a great idea and one @gvlx and I discussed this week (I initially thought he might have suggested it) ā€” apparently thereā€™s a version in free software circles they refer to as the 4 Fā€™s and 10 Pā€™s. Did you have preferred wording we can add?

3

Hi Cora, and welcome! :hugs:

Do you have a specific patch to suggest?

4

:woman_shrugging:

Open source doesnā€™t just mean access to the source code, but granting users the freedom to study, use, modify and share the program.

1 Like
5

Added to the WIP, linked back to this thread, and tagged ā€˜wipā€™.

1 Like
6

Hi everyone.

Let me start by saying that all the work here must be anchored the Four Freedoms.

So it is extremely important they are exposed so that the first thing anyone sees when entering the website by the first time (the so called ā€œabove the foldā€ message).

I know the website name and domain are meant to explain the OSD but that only exists as a clarification on the Four Freedoms (which have their own clarification in the link above).

Keep on sharing! :slight_smile:

7

Hi @sam,

Iā€™m afraid Iā€™ve been using this term myself but I realize now that itā€™s already heavily overloaded semantically so it is better to stop using it.

And itā€™s even worse with the other.

don't look here

The first rule of referencing the urban dictionary is to never link to itā€¦

1 Like
8

I propose that going forward we refer to them as the more inclusive/less elitist ā€œ4 Freedoms + 10 Principlesā€ then, and incorporate them into the document itself. The only modification I would make to @coraā€™s suggested wording is that they be spelled out as bullet points, which may or may not be something we can bring in from the Free Software Definition:

A program is free software if the programā€™s users have the four essential freedoms:

  • The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
  • The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
  • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
  • The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Or alternatively, the OSAID drafts:

An Open Source AI is an AI system made available under terms and in a way that grant the freedoms to:

  • Use the system for any purpose and without having to ask for permission.
  • Study how the system works and inspect its components.
  • Modify the system for any purpose, including to change its output.
  • Share the system for others to use with or without modifications, for any purpose.

Or, more likely, something tailored to the needs of the document. For example, weā€™ve seen the freedom to modify being interpreted as the freedom to make any modification (i.e., fine-tuning) rather than all modifications. The FSD touches on this issue, but the modifiers ā€œfor any purposeā€, ā€œwithout having to ask for permissionā€, and possibly others apply to all four points, not just the last one:

Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.

I have included the explanatory sentence because I believe it is critical. I had until recently thought of this omission as another deliberate layer of abstraction, with the principles implementing in an abstract way the freedoms, which is then made concrete by the licenses which are applied to the software:

Four Freedoms :arrow_right: Open Source Definition :arrow_right: License :arrow_right: Software

While the license (perhaps better termed instrument given recent discussions and the apparent need for frameworks like an updated MOF, and the use of Terms of Service in lieu of a license) layer of indirection is a critical part of the landscape as it allows anyone to apply and obtain Open Source status without having to ask for permission from any authority, the freedoms & principles could and arguably should be tightly coupled.

Furthermore, it should be done in such a way that the freedoms are the foundation and take priority over the principles which implement them. This should protect against future weakening of the principles, but as weā€™ve seen with the OSAID (which references the freedoms but does not fully protect them), this point needs to be explicit to provide any safety. IANAL and this likely eventually needs one.

3 Likes
9

Well said, your flow follows the best practices of establishing and steering a principled organization.

Mission :arrow_right: Purpose :arrow_right: Process :arrow_right: Action

4 Likes
10

Not sure: the whole OSD is already a numbered list and a set of bullet points inside the intro would look a bit messy. Also it would be a much larger patch, so much some would argue that the document is not OSD anymore.

While it would be funny and mind-blowing, Iā€™m not sure we could define ā€œopen sourceā€ from scratch without unintended side effects. Itā€™s not impossible, but would require a huge consensus among developers.

The problem with that list is that it mention in the same point the freedom to study and the freedom to modify. While the Italian translation is crystal-clear, this is unfortunate in English, because a superficial reading might miss the comma: freedom 1 is not the ā€œfreedom to study how the program works and change itā€, but the ā€œfreedom to study how the program works, and change itā€.
That comma in English means that you should be free to study how the program works even if you do not plan to modify it. But people who canā€™t read carefully end up claiming that the freedom to study is a second class citizen in free and open source software.

Ironically, thatā€™s a bit better, but again gain, the freedom to study is being watered down: why just ā€œinspectā€ the systemā€™s components? I want the freedom to study each of them as well!

Any competent and relevant input is certainly welcome, but note that a definition is not a license: it is descriptive, not prescriptive.

The OSD is first and foremost a social contract among the software creators (developers, artists, data scientists and so onā€¦) who share their time and highly valuable skills through the software.

As such, itā€™s up to software creators to decide its values, goals and principles.

OSI didnā€™t understand this simple fact, didnā€™t listen to practitioners, and built OSAID that ignore their needs while pretending to grant the four freedoms.
Iā€™m sure it was not intentional: detached from their base, they entered an echo chamber with too few developers and too many corporate representatives.

Letā€™s try as hard as possible to not repeat their error here.

1 Like
11

If less is more,

Open source doesnā€™t just mean access to the source code, but granting users the freedom to study, use, modify, and share the program, for any purpose and without having to ask for permission.

1 Like