The Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) is a slap in the face to anyone who has been part of the open source community. Allowing companies to redefine "Open" to allow closed components is a complete betrayal of everything the OSI should stand for, and it was done purely so large companies can pretend their closed models are open.
Honest question; what does OSI <i>actually</i> do? I am involved with a number of OS projects and not once has OSI come up in any context, be it compliance, governance, education and so on.
As a reminder, the OSI was formed as a corporate-friendly foil to Stallman's FSF. This is how the OSI once described its own history on its website:<p>> The conferees decided it was time to dump the moralizing and confrontational attitude that had been associated with "free software" in the past and sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape. They brainstormed about tactics and a new label. "Open source", contributed by Chris Peterson, was the best thing they came up with.<p>Given that the OSI exists to water down a distinctly moral framework like Free Software into a version that is less "moralizing" and "confrontational" so as to be more appealing to corporations, the path that Open Source has taken over the last few years is hardly surprising.<p>I've become convinced that the cure for what has been ailing us in the FOSS movement is going to come only as we buck the corporate elements and return to something more closely resembling the original Free Software ethics-based movement. The GPL and AGPL are some of the only licenses not to get totally sucked up in corporate interests, and that's not a coincidence: they were founded on the deeply and sincerely held principle that it is an ethical imperative to advance the good of software's individual human users.<p>[0] <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20071115150105/https://opensource.org/history/" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20071115150105/https://opensource...</a>