Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Open Source Initiative


The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit founded in 1998 by Eric Raymond and to educate about and advocate for the benefits of , while stewarding (OSD) that establishes criteria for software licenses to qualify as . The term "open source" itself was coined by Christine Peterson and adopted by the OSI founders to emphasize practical advantages over the ideological framing of "," distinguishing it from the Free Software Foundation's approach. The OSI's core function includes approving licenses that comply with the OSD's ten criteria, such as free redistribution, availability of , and non-discrimination, thereby certifying over 100 licenses that enable development used in projects like and countless enterprise tools. Through global advocacy, the OSI has bridged communities, governments, and corporations, fostering adoption of in sectors from to , while maintaining oversight to prevent misuse of the term. Notable achievements include shaping policy discussions, such as collaborations on definitions, and building a sustainable to represent the amid the explosive growth of ecosystems. However, the OSI has faced controversies, including internal debates over requirements in models and criticisms from pioneers like co-founder that the movement has "won but also failed" due to dilutions in principles and rising corporate exploitation without adequate reciprocity. Recent board election disputes and accusations of scandals have further highlighted tensions between maintaining definitional purity and adapting to modern challenges like extractive commercial practices. Despite these, the OSI remains a pivotal authority in certifying what constitutes , influencing billions in software value worldwide.

Origins and Historical Development

Formation and Coining of "Open Source" (1998)

The term "open source" was coined by Christine Peterson, executive director of the Foresight Institute, in early 1998 during a strategy session in Palo Alto, California, organized by publisher Tim O'Reilly. This meeting sought a pragmatic alternative to "free software," which carried ideological baggage associated with Richard Stallman's GNU Project and emphasized freedom over business appeal. Peterson proposed "open source" to highlight the technical and collaborative advantages of accessible source code, aiming to attract commercial interest following Netscape Communications' January 29, 1998, announcement to release its browser's source code under a free license. In response to these developments, and founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI) in late February 1998 as a to advocate for principles. , author of "," served as the inaugural , while Perens, former Debian project leader, acted as vice president. The OSI's initial board included figures like and Perens' successor at , , reflecting a coalition of developers and industry supporters. The OSI promptly formalized the Open Source Definition (OSD) by adapting the , stripping Debian-specific references to create a vendor-neutral standard for license certification. This definition outlined criteria such as free redistribution, availability of , and allowance for derived works, prioritizing practical over ethical mandates. The effort aimed to standardize and practices, distinguishing from while enabling broader adoption in enterprise contexts. By April 1998, the OSI had approved its first licenses, including the and the GNU General Public License.

Early License Approvals and Growth (1998-2005)

Following its formation in late February 1998, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) promptly initiated the assessment of software licenses against the newly established Open Source Definition (OSD), with early evaluations focusing on pre-existing licenses from the free software era that aligned with principles of free redistribution, source code access, and derived works compatibility. Informal approvals began in 1998 for licenses such as the GNU General Public License (GPL), GNU Library General Public License (LGPL), , and , which were recognized for enabling collaborative development without restrictive terms. By October 1999, OSI published its first formal list of approved licenses, establishing a canonical reference that has since been iteratively updated to certify compliance with the OSD. This certification process drove organizational growth, as OSI positioned itself as a neutral arbiter amid rising interest in following high-profile adoptions like Netscape's release of Mozilla code under the in 1998. In January 1999, OSI supported a urging the U.S. to evaluate for procurement, highlighting its potential for cost savings and security—efforts that amplified visibility and encouraged broader institutional engagement. The approved licenses list expanded steadily, with OSI reviewing and certifying additional variants, such as the and , to accommodate diverse project needs while maintaining OSD fidelity; by the early , annual approvals numbered in the single digits, reflecting deliberate curation to avoid proliferation. From 2003 to 2005, OSI's maturation accelerated: it attained 501(c)(3) nonprofit status in , formalizing its educational and advocacy role; in , it amended the OSD with Clause 10 to clarify restrictions on discriminatory click-wrap agreements and launched a campaign against to streamline compatibility; and by 2005, the board diversified internationally with directors from , South America, Japan, and India, extending OSI's influence beyond North America. These developments solidified OSI's authority, as the growing roster of approved licenses—totaling over 50 by mid-decade—facilitated widespread adoption in enterprise and government contexts, evidenced by endorsements from entities like and increasing references in policy discussions.

Maturation and Challenges (2006-2015)

In 2006, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) addressed the challenge of by publishing a report that analyzed the rapid increase in license submissions—hundreds received over the years, with approximately 60 approved—recommending categorization and discouragement of redundant variants to improve and reduce ecosystem fragmentation. This effort reflected maturation in OSI's stewardship role, as unchecked proliferation risked complicating compliance and collaboration in growing enterprise adoption of . That same year, OSI formulated the Open Standards Requirements for Software, a set of criteria to ensure government-mandated standards permitted implementation with licenses, thereby promoting policy alignment with open source principles amid rising interest. These initiatives demonstrated OSI's evolution from initial license certification to proactive advocacy for sustainable standards. A pivotal development occurred on October 16, 2007, when OSI's board approved two licenses—the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL) and Microsoft Reciprocal License (MS-RL)—as compliant with , marking a key step in bridging open source with vendors and facilitating hybrid development models. This approval, following 's submission under OSI's established process, underscored broadening commercial legitimacy but also highlighted tensions over terms in MS-RL, which required derivative works to share improvements under similar conditions. By , OSI revised its bylaws to formalize and launched an affiliates program, enabling aligned organizations to participate in and fostering deeper . In 2012, it introduced director elections via affiliates and an individual membership program, enhancing accountability and funding stability as scaled globally, with OSI directors expanding to include international representatives since around 2005. These structural changes countered challenges of volunteer-led operations, supporting OSI's role in an era of widespread adoption, including in and mobile platforms, while guarding against dilution of core principles.

Recent Evolution and AI Focus (2016-Present)

In 2021, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) appointed Stefano Maffulli as its first on September 8, marking a shift toward professional management after a board-initiated process begun in 2020 to enhance and operations. This leadership change facilitated expanded advocacy, including the 2018 20th anniversary world tour with over 100 activities across 40 global events to promote principles. By 2023, OSI intensified engagement with amid growing governmental scrutiny of , particularly regarding software integrity and regulatory compliance in regions like the . OSI faced broader ecosystem challenges during this period, including sustainability concerns for maintainers and the need for models to support ongoing amid rising commercial dependencies on components. In response, the organization published annual State of Open Source reports, with the 2025 edition—based on a survey from September to December 2024—highlighting trends in adoption, management, and scaling within organizations, alongside tensions from regulatory pressures and vulnerabilities. These efforts underscored OSI's evolution from certification to of 's role in global policy and economic value, estimated at $8.8 trillion in a 2024 Harvard study cited by OSI. A pivotal focus emerged on starting around 2023, as debates intensified over whether proprietary AI models with partial disclosures (e.g., weights but not training data or processes) qualified as . OSI developed the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) through collaborative drafts, culminating in version 1.0 released on October 28, 2024, at the All Things Open conference. OSAID v1.0 establishes criteria for AI systems as those enabling unrestricted use, study, modification, and sharing, emphasizing in model weights, inference code, , and documentation to prevent "openwashing" by vendors. While praised for providing practical guidelines, the definition drew criticism for shifting emphasis from licenses to project-level compliance and requiring detailed disclosures, potentially limiting its adoption for large-scale models. By 2025, OSI's AI initiatives expanded to include frameworks and responses to U.S. AI strategies, partnering with groups like the to advocate for ethical, transparent systems. The organization's March 2025 strategic roadmap prioritized resources for developers working on AI systems and datasets, alongside events like the September Open Source Congress in to shape global agendas. Maffulli's departure in October 2025 to pursue open source AI and prompted a search for a successor, affirming continuity in modernization amid these priorities.

Core Definitions and Standards

The Open Source Definition (OSD)

The Open Source Definition (OSD) establishes the criteria for software licenses to be recognized as by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), emphasizing freedoms for redistribution, modification, and use without restrictive conditions. Introduced in February shortly after OSI's formation, the OSD was adapted from the (DFSG), which drafted in 1997 for the project; OSI co-founder revised it to remove Debian-specific elements and align with a broader, pragmatic promotion of collaborative software development. This definition diverged from the Foundation's emphasis on ethical imperatives by prioritizing practical permissions that facilitate commercial adoption and innovation. The OSD, currently in version 1.9 as last modified on , , consists of ten criteria that licenses must satisfy to ensure software remains accessible and modifiable across diverse contexts. It has remained largely stable, with minor clarifications over time; notably, Criterion 10 was added in 2004 to prohibit licenses that impose technology-specific restrictions, such as those requiring click-wrap acceptances that could limit . OSI applies the OSD rigorously in its approval , having certified over 80 licenses as of 2023 that comply with these standards, enabling widespread adoption in projects like and . Non-compliance, as seen in copyleft-weak or proprietary-leaning licenses, results in rejection, underscoring the definition's role in maintaining a baseline for verifiable openness amid varying interpretations. The criteria are as follows:
  1. Free Redistribution: The license may not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software, and no royalties or fees beyond reasonable reproduction costs are required for such sales.
  2. : The preferred form for making modifications must be provided, including human-readable source code that is distributable and not deliberately obfuscated.
  3. Derived Works: The license must allow modifications and derived works to be distributed under the same terms as the original.
  4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code: Patching or modification restrictions are permitted only if unmodified source code remains identifiable and patch files are allowed for changes.
  5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
  6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: The license must not restrict use in specific fields of endeavor, such as commercial applications or research.
  7. Distribution of License: Rights granted by the license apply to all recipients without requiring additional licenses for redistribution.
  8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: The rights attached to the program must not depend on its distribution as part of a specific product.
  9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software: The license must not impose restrictions on other software distributed with the licensed program.
  10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral: No provision in the license may require adherence to a particular software distribution method, such as requiring network servers or specific packaging.
These criteria collectively ensure that open source software promotes collaborative ecosystems while avoiding ideological or exclusionary barriers, though debates persist on whether they adequately address modern challenges like hardware dependencies or AI models.

License Certification Process

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) maintains a license certification process to evaluate and approve licenses that conform to (OSD), ensuring software under such licenses meets community-established criteria for openness, including free redistribution, access, derived works allowance, and non-discrimination against fields of endeavor. This process, formalized since the OSI's inception in 1998, promotes transparency, community input, and restraint against by favoring clear, reusable licenses that address unmet needs rather than duplicating existing ones. Proponents submit proposed licenses via the public license-review , providing the full license text in plain and formats, an explicit affirmation of OSD compliance across its ten criteria, documentation of any associated project usage or , and confirmation of a unique title distinct from prior approvals to avoid confusion. Submissions must demonstrate practical applicability, with the OSI encouraging legal analysis where complex terms are involved, though no formal attorney review is mandated upfront. Following submission, the process unfolds through open discussion on the , where stakeholders—including developers, legal experts, and OSI affiliates—scrutinize the for ambiguities, enforceability, and alignment with OSD principles such as permitting modifications without imposing restrictions on commercial use. Submitters engage iteratively, potentially withdrawing and resubmitting revised versions to address concerns, fostering while allowing the OSI to reject that fail to meet standards or introduce undue complexity. The License Review Committee (LRC), comprising OSI-appointed volunteers with expertise in licensing, oversees the dialogue without direct voting power, synthesizing feedback to recommend approval, disapproval, or further deliberation to the OSI . The Board then votes on the recommendation, with approvals granting the license official status and permitting use of the OSI Certified mark to signify compliance. Timelines aim for 60 days on initial reviews and 30 days for revisions, extendable for intricate cases, though historical precedents do not bind future decisions even for similar terms. Criteria extend beyond mere OSD adherence to emphasize licenses' reusability for multiple projects, precise language to reduce interpretive disputes, and necessity in filling ecosystem gaps, as evidenced by rejections of redundant or overly restrictive proposals like those incorporating field-specific limitations. Legacy licenses, often submitted for retroactive , are assessed in their original form with historical usage context, acknowledging evolution in community norms since early approvals such as the in 1998. As of October 2025, this has resulted in certification of approximately 80 licenses, though a smaller subset—such as MIT, Apache 2.0, and GPL variants—dominates adoption due to their proven interoperability and minimal friction.

Open Source AI Definition (OSAID)

The AI Definition (OSAID) establishes criteria for classifying systems as open source, adapting the freedoms of to address unique aspects of models, such as weights, code, and data descriptions. Version 1.0 was approved by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) on October 27, 2024, and released publicly on October 28, 2024, following a collaborative drafting process involving community input via OSI's discussion forums. The definition aims to promote transparency, autonomy, and collaborative improvement in while recognizing practical barriers to full in large-scale models, such as or voluminous datasets. Under OSAID 1.0, an AI system grants users four essential freedoms: to use the system for any purpose without seeking permission; to study its components and make modifications; to share it with or without changes for any purpose; and to access the preferred form for making such modifications. This preferred form requires disclosure of model parameters (including weights and configurations), full for and , and detailed about data—such as descriptions of datasets, their or sources, and any preprocessing steps—but does not mandate releasing the raw data itself. The system must be distributed under terms compatible with an OSI-approved , ensuring no restrictions on commercial use, field of endeavor, or redistribution. AI systems are defined broadly as machine-based setups that infer outputs from inputs, with a focus on techniques that improve via data exposure. Governance of OSAID falls under the OSI Board, which includes experts in business, law, and , with ongoing community feedback mechanisms and periodic updates. Examples of models compliant with OSAID 1.0 include , OLMo, , CrystalCoder, and , which provide the requisite components for study and modification. The definition distinguishes AI from "open weights" models, which release only parameters without full code or data transparency, deeming the latter insufficient for true openness. Critics, including open source advocate and the , contend that OSAID erodes core open source principles by omitting requirements for raw training data release or verifiable , potentially enabling "openwashing" of partially systems. Tech firms like have objected to mandates for detailed data sourcing in models such as , arguing they impose undue burdens without enhancing practical utility. OSI defends the criteria as pragmatic, prioritizing achievable over unattainable ideals given the scale of modern training, while committing to evolution based on empirical feedback. As of late 2024, adoption remains nascent, with OSI positioning OSAID as a for akin to its approvals.

Organizational Governance

Structure and Legal Status

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) operates as a nonprofit incorporated in under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law, with a primary focus on public educational purposes related to advocacy and standards. This legal form enables OSI to pursue its mission without distributing profits to private interests, emphasizing , license certification, and policy development. OSI holds 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status under the U.S. , qualifying it for tax-deductible donations and exempting it from federal income tax on mission-related activities. Governance is vested in a , which holds collective responsibility for strategic oversight, including approving budgets, setting policies, and supporting operational execution. The board appoints an to manage day-to-day operations, staff, and program implementation, a role formalized in 2021 to professionalize amid growing demands on ecosystems. Board composition includes directors elected by individual members and affiliate organizations, with terms typically lasting two years, ensuring representation from diverse stakeholders such as developers, companies, and nonprofits. OSI's bylaws outline operational mechanisms, including provisions for amendments, officer elections, and , maintaining a structure adaptable to evolving technological and community needs without rigid hierarchies. As a global entity despite its U.S. base, OSI engages affiliates worldwide but remains subject to corporate law for filings, reporting, and procedures, which prioritize public benefit over shareholder interests. This framework has sustained OSI's independence, though it relies on sponsorships and donations for funding, raising periodic questions about potential influences on decision-making.

Leadership and Board Dynamics

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is governed by a comprising 12 members: four elected by individual members, four by affiliate members, and four appointed by the board itself, with terms typically lasting two years. The board sets strategic direction, oversees operations, and appoints officers, while the handles day-to-day management, including staff coordination and program execution. As of March 2025, the board includes directors such as Chris Aniszczyk (term ending March 2026), McCoy Smith (March 2025-2027), and Ruth Suehle (March 2025-2028), reflecting a mix of industry professionals from organizations like the and . Stefano Maffulli served as from 2021 until September 2025, leading growth initiatives before transitioning to interim under Deborah , a board member and former U.S. policy director. Board elections occur annually for renewing seats, with candidates nominated from eligible OSI members—full individual members for individual seats and affiliates for affiliate seats—requiring current membership at least one week prior to nomination deadlines. The process involves public slates, voting among members, and board , but has faced criticism for opacity, such as unclear specifications for deadlines and limited transparency in vote tallies. In the 2025 cycle, for instance, affiliates elected Carlo Piana and Ruth Suehle, while individual members selected McCoy Smith, amid broader disputes that prompted petitions demanding full results disclosure. Dynamics within the board have been marked by tensions between ideological purists and pragmatic corporate influences, exacerbated by debates over emerging technologies like . A notable flashpoint occurred in March 2020 when the board banned co-founder from participation, citing his public statements as incompatible with OSI's community standards; critics, including software developers on forums, viewed this as a power consolidation move sidelining dissenting voices on philosophy. More recently, the 2025 elections saw public acrimony over a candidate's exclusion, tied to disagreements on the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID), with board chair Hinds defending procedural adherence while opponents alleged arbitrary barriers favoring pro- corporate perspectives. These episodes highlight a pattern of internal friction, where board decisions on standards and affiliations increasingly intersect with industry pressures, potentially alienating grassroots contributors in favor of aligned affiliates from tech firms.

Funding, Operations, and Sustainability

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) operates as a 501(c)(3) non-profit , primarily funded through corporate sponsorships from technology companies. Platinum-level sponsors include , Open Source Programs Office, and , while gold-level sponsors encompass , , , , , , and . These contributions support OSI's activities in license certification, policy advocacy, and community outreach, with total revenues reported at $811,527 for the ending December 2023. Operations are managed by a small under board oversight, with Deb Bryant serving as interim since at least , leading U.S. policy initiatives including the founding of the Open Policy Alliance. Other key staff include Simon Phipps as standards and EU policy director, Phyllis Dobbs as part-time controller, Nick Vidal as , Jordan Maris as EU policy analyst, Katie Steen-James as senior U.S. policy manager, and Gabriel Toscano as U.S. policy intern. With only two full-time employees listed in tax filings, OSI relies on contractors and volunteers for much of its workload, focusing on standards maintenance, event participation (over 20 talks and town halls in 2024), and publishing more than 100 blog posts annually. The handles strategic direction, budget approval, and executive support, with a recent search for a permanent announced on September 15, 2025. Sustainability hinges on sponsorship renewals and modest financial health, with 2023 expenses at $684,147 against revenues, yielding net assets of $896,360. Program services consumed $306,000, staffing $206,000, legal fees $69,000, and other costs like IT and marketing in the low tens of thousands, per annual reporting. This corporate-dependent model has sustained OSI since its founding but exposes it to fluctuations in tech industry support, as evidenced by historical budgets around $209,500 in 2019. Efforts toward long-term viability include contributions to global policy roadmaps, such as the Digital Public Goods Alliance's 2023 sustainability goals.

Controversies and Debates

Philosophical Split with Free Software Advocates

The philosophical divergence between the Open Source Initiative (OSI) and free software advocates, primarily represented by the (FSF), crystallized in 1998 amid efforts to broaden the appeal of non-proprietary software development. The FSF, founded by in 1985, framed software freedom as an ethical imperative, emphasizing four essential user freedoms: to run the program for any purpose, to study and modify it, to redistribute copies, and to distribute modified versions. This approach positioned proprietary software as inherently unjust, prioritizing moral opposition to restrictions on user autonomy over pragmatic outcomes. In contrast, the OSI, established in February 1998 by figures including and , adopted "" as a term to highlight practical advantages such as accelerated innovation, improved reliability through collaborative scrutiny, and compatibility with commercial interests. Raymond's 1997 essay argued that decentralized, peer-reviewed development—exemplified by —yielded superior results compared to centralized models, framing as a superior engineering methodology rather than a moral crusade. This reframing aimed to attract businesses wary of the ideological connotations of "," which Stallman had promoted since the early via the GNU Project, by decoupling source availability from ethical rhetoric and focusing on verifiable benefits like reduced bugs and market adaptability. Stallman vociferously opposed the OSI's nomenclature and philosophy, contending in 1998 that it obscured the ethical stakes by equating software quality with freedom, thereby conceding ground to proprietary paradigms without challenging their legitimacy. He argued that open source proponents treated freedoms as instrumental tools for "better" software in a technical sense, ignoring the intrinsic wrongness of denying users control and the societal risks of normalized restrictions. Stallman viewed the split as a strategic dilution: while free software demanded respect for users' rights as a non-negotiable principle, open source permitted licenses that prioritized developer collaboration over user freedoms, potentially enabling "semi-free" models that undermined long-term autonomy. This tension persisted, with Stallman maintaining that the OSI's pragmatism facilitated corporate co-optation, evidenced by endorsements from entities like Netscape during its 1998 browser source release, which catalyzed OSI's formation but aligned more with market-driven openness than absolutist ethics. The rift underscored a causal divide in priorities—ideological purity versus empirical efficacy—with open source's flexibility correlating to exponential adoption, as contributors grew from hundreds in 1998 to over 15,000 by 2023, per data, while 's stricter stance preserved a purist core but limited mainstream traction. Critics from the FSF perspective, including Stallman, attribute this disparity not to inherent superiority but to open source's willingness to de-emphasize , allowing proprietary firms to cherry-pick benefits without freedoms. Nonetheless, both camps endorse the Definition's compatibility with free software criteria, revealing overlap in technical standards despite philosophical antagonism.

Corporate Capture and Pragmatic Shifts

The Initiative's funding model has evolved to depend heavily on corporate sponsorships, enabling operational sustainability but raising concerns about from large technology firms. As of 2024, platinum-level supporters include , Open Source Programs Office, and , while gold sponsors encompass , , , , and , among others. This structure, which provides the majority of OSI's financial backing, has been acknowledged by former OSI president Simon Phipps as tying the to major software vendors whose interests often prioritize scalable models over unrestricted . Critics contend that this reliance facilitates corporate capture, manifesting in pragmatic adjustments to OSI policies that favor commercial imperatives. For example, the 2024 Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) has faced accusations of being crafted to align with the needs of donors like , , and , emphasizing modifiable weights and modifiable training data pipelines in ways that accommodate proprietary AI deployments rather than enforcing full transparency or non-discrimination in model access. Such provisions reflect a shift from the original Definition's (OSD) stricter criteria—rooted in 1998 principles of free redistribution and derived works—toward flexibility that permits "source-available" models with limitations, as seen in OSI's approval of licenses blending open and restrictive elements for enterprise use. This evolution prioritizes widespread adoption in cloud and AI ecosystems, where corporations dominate, over purist interpretations that might hinder monetization strategies like hosted services. These pragmatic turns have sparked internal and external rifts, including transitions in 2025 amid debates over OSAID's interim status and community-imposed compromises. OSI board elections have highlighted tensions, with candidates critiquing hasty rollouts that alienate contributors in favor of alignment, as evidenced by 2025 controversies over rushed guidelines creating divisions in the (FOSS) community. Proponents of the shifts argue they adapt to modern realities, such as AI's computational demands, where ideological rigidity could stifle ; however, detractors, including voices from FOSS advocacy outlets, warn that sustained corporate sway erodes OSI's role as an impartial steward, transforming it into a validator for profit-driven dilutions of openness. Empirical patterns in license approvals—over 100 certified by 2025, many tailored for corporate workflows—underscore this trajectory, correlating with increased enterprise adoption but declining emphasis on anti-proprietary safeguards.

AI Definition Disputes and Internal Conflicts

The Open Source Initiative's (OSI) release of the AI Definition (OSAID) 1.0 on October 28, 2024, ignited disputes over whether the criteria sufficiently uphold open source principles for systems. The definition mandates freedoms to use, study, modify, and share systems, including access to model weights, inference code, and training architecture, alongside requirements for transparency in datasets used. However, it explicitly does not require disclosure of full training , a stance OSI defended as necessary to enable open source in domains with proprietary or sensitive , such as healthcare or , where could violate laws or competitive constraints. Critics, including open source purists, contended this omission renders models non-reproducible and unverifiable, effectively allowing "open weights" models to masquerade as open source while concealing potential biases, legal risks from copyrighted training , or non-deterministic behaviors. These definitional tensions escalated into internal OSI conflicts, particularly evident in the organization's 2025 board . In February 2025, OSI disqualified candidate Carlo Piana, a vocal OSAID opponent who argued AI's reliance on vast, often scraped datasets constitutes inherent "" incompatible with ethos, prompting accusations of suppressing dissent to protect the definition's ratification. The decision fueled public backlash, with executive director Bradley Kuhn alleging procedural irregularities, including opaque vote tallies and failure to accommodate individual memberships, which skewed outcomes toward OSAID supporters. A subsequent demanded full, unaltered election results, highlighting divisions between OSI's pragmatic faction—aiming to adapt to AI's commercial realities—and traditionalists prioritizing reproducibility over accessibility. The board ultimately seated Piana alongside Ruth Suehle in March 2025, but the episode underscored governance strains, with OSI forums reflecting community fractures: some praised OSAID as a "step forward" for clarifying ambiguous "" claims by firms like , whose models OSI publicly critiqued for falling short. Others decried it as a rushed diluting OSI's authority, potentially alienating allies like advocates who view non-data-open models as proprietary in disguise. These rifts, amplified by OSI's shift toward certification amid corporate influence, revealed causal pressures from technological evolution challenging foundational tenets without full .

Allegations of Declining Relevance

Critics within the advocacy community have alleged that the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has lost significant influence as became mainstream, with major corporations effectively defining standards through adoption rather than OSI certification. In a March 31, 2025, analysis, FOSS Force argued that OSI risks irrelevancy due to "corporate capture and over standards processes," particularly evident in board elections and the handling of like , where industry giants bypass OSI approvals in favor of proprietary adaptations of principles. These allegations point to OSI's pragmatic shifts, such as approving licenses perceived as accommodating corporate relicensing needs, which have diluted its role as an arbiter. Techrights, a site focused on software freedom critiques, documented multiple scandals in 2025, including questions over board and erosion from perceived favoritism toward enterprise interests, stating on that "the , reliability and of the Open Source Initiative comes into question, again." Such issues, critics claim, stem from OSI's evolution from a standards body founded in to one increasingly reliant on sponsorships from tech firms, reducing its authority as ecosystems self-govern via platforms like , which hosted over 100 million repositories by 2023 without mandatory OSI validation. The AI Definition (OSAID), ratified in 2024 after contentious debates, exemplifies these claims of declining sway; while OSI positioned it as a community-driven standard to clarify AI openness, detractors argued it failed to achieve consensus, with figures like —co-author of the original Definition—opting to avoid it in favor of alternative frameworks, reflecting a year of stalled adoption by 2025. This internal fragmentation, coupled with broader maturation where usage is driven by cost efficiencies rather than ideological —as per a 2024 OpenLogic survey showing primary motivations as licensing savings over OSI endorsement—has led observers to contend that OSI's gatekeeping function is obsolete in a landscape dominated by hyperscalers like and . Sources advancing these views, often aligned with principles, emphasize OSI's departure from stricter ideals, though OSI maintains its definitions underpin global adoption metrics, such as the billions in economic value attributed to by 2025 estimates.

Achievements and Broader Impact

Promotion of Open Source Adoption

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) promotes open source adoption through targeted , advocacy, and standardization efforts that emphasize practical benefits such as improved , reduced costs, and avoidance of . Formed in 1998, OSI has conducted global outreach via conferences, online seminars, and policy engagements to demonstrate these advantages to developers, enterprises, and governments. Its certification of open source licenses provides legal clarity, facilitating procurement and integration by simplifying compliance for organizations transitioning from . OSI's educational programs directly support adoption by equipping stakeholders with actionable knowledge. The Practical Open Source series offers online resources on licensing, strategies, and articulating open source value propositions to executives and teams. Complementary initiatives include the License Clinic, a series addressing advanced topics like licensing for U.S. agencies and tech communities, and the Deep Dive series exploring business models, ethics, and practices in open source ecosystems. The State of the Source convenes international discussions on non-technical challenges, such as and , to foster informed decision-making and broader implementation. These efforts aim to lower barriers for newcomers while reinforcing best practices for established users. The Affiliate program amplifies adoption by partnering with over 100 nonprofit organizations, projects, educational institutions, and user groups worldwide, creating a collaborative network for localized advocacy and issue resolution. Affiliates, such as Open Source Hong Kong and the .NET Foundation, leverage OSI's platform to host events, provide , and influence regional policies, thereby extending reach into communities and enterprises. This structure addresses adoption hurdles like awareness gaps and regulatory uncertainty through collective action. OSI further encourages institutional uptake via guidance on Open Source Program Offices (OSPOs), outlining maturity stages from ad-hoc usage to strategic integration, including compliance, policy development, and . By promoting OSPOs as central hubs for operations, OSI helps organizations systematize contributions and consumption, as seen in collaborations like Hacktoberfest to boost developer participation and project vitality. Policy advocacy, including endorsements of frameworks like the Open Source Principles in February 2025, targets governments to prioritize in procurement and innovation. These initiatives collectively drive measurable shifts, such as increased enterprise OSPOs and policy recognitions affirming 's role in reducing monopolies.

Contributions to Software Ecosystems

The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has significantly shaped software ecosystems through its stewardship of (OSD), a set of ten criteria established to delineate software that grants freedoms for use, study, modification, and distribution while prohibiting restrictions on those rights. This framework, derived from prior community guidelines, provided a pragmatic that encouraged adoption by emphasizing non-discriminatory access over ideological mandates, thereby fostering across diverse projects and reducing legal ambiguities in . By clarifying permissible terms, the OSD enabled developers to build layered ecosystems, such as those underpinning distributions and servers, where modular components from multiple contributors integrate seamlessly without lock-in. OSI's license approval process has further bolstered ecosystem health by vetting and certifying over 90 licenses against the OSD as of 2024, including permissive ones like the MIT and Apache 2.0 licenses alongside copyleft variants like the GNU General Public License (GPL). This curation addresses the proliferation of incompatible terms that could fragment development efforts, offering developers a reliable index to select licenses that promote compatibility and mitigate risks in supply chains, as evidenced by widespread use in enterprise software stacks. For instance, the approval of the Apache License facilitated the growth of big data ecosystems like Hadoop, where contributions from varied entities aggregate without redistribution conflicts. Through advocacy and education, OSI has promoted collaborative norms that underpin resilient software ecosystems, tracking legislative influences and providing resources that have correlated with open source's expansion to power 96% of top web servers and contribute to an estimated $8.8 trillion annual economic value as of 2024. These efforts have standardized practices for code sharing, enabling rapid iteration in fields like and frameworks, while OSI's review mechanisms ensure evolving norms align with community expectations for sustainable innovation.

Criticisms of Overreach and Limitations

Critics have argued that the (OSI) overreaches by enforcing a rigid interpretation of its Open Source Definition (OSD), particularly through the non-discrimination clause, which prohibits licenses from restricting use based on fields of endeavor, persons, or groups. This stance, as articulated in OSI guidelines, prevents developers from crafting licenses that exclude applications such as or unethical uses, limiting options for those seeking to align with specific moral or practical constraints. OSI's license approval process has also drawn accusations of overreach, with some commentators noting that approved licenses can impose "viral" terms—requiring derivatives to adopt open source obligations—that effectively convert into without the original owner's explicit consent, raising concerns. This mechanism, inherent in copyleft-style licenses endorsed by OSI, has been viewed as extending influence beyond voluntary adoption, potentially disrupting commercial models reliant on proprietary extensions. Organizationally, OSI faces limitations from its modest scale and governance structure, historically operating as a small entity with no more than one full-time employee and reliance on a volunteer board, which constrains its capacity to address the ecosystem's complexities amid rapid technological shifts. Internal divisions, exemplified by co-founder ' resignation in January 2020 over disputes regarding a proposed data commons license, underscore challenges in maintaining and in . These factors have prompted questions about OSI's authority and adaptability, with critics asserting that its processes reflect ad hoc political history rather than consistent, objective criteria for defining .

References

  1. [1]
    History of the Open Source Initiative
    The goal of the original Board was to build a sustainable institution to represent the open-source community and exercise stewardship of the Open Source ...
  2. [2]
    About – Open Source Initiative
    The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a California public benefit corporation, with 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, founded in 1998.History · Board of directors · Trademark and brand guidelines · Our teamMissing: key facts -
  3. [3]
    Frequently Answered Questions - Open Source Initiative
    The term “open source” was coined by Christine Peterson and adopted in 1998 by the founders of the Open Source Initiative.<|separator|>
  4. [4]
    The Open Source Definition
    Mar 22, 2007 · 1. Free Redistribution · 2. Source Code · 3. Derived Works · 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code · 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or ...Introduction · 1. Free Redistribution · 2. Source CodeMissing: facts - | Show results with:facts -
  5. [5]
    International Authority & Recognition - Open Source Initiative
    Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a nonprofit organization dedicated to managing and promoting the Open Source Definition (OSD). OSD defines the rights that a ...Missing: founding | Show results with:founding
  6. [6]
    Open Source Initiative – The steward of the Open Source Definition ...
    Our mission. We are a non-profit organization with global scope, formed to educate and advocate for the benefits of Open Source and to build bridges among ...About · Licenses · Definition · History
  7. [7]
    The Open Source Initiative and the Eclipse Foundation to ...
    Nov 14, 2024 · Founded in 1998, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a non-profit corporation with global scope formed to educate about and advocate for the ...
  8. [8]
    How we passed the AI conundrums - Open Source Initiative
    Oct 9, 2024 · This group argues that anything less than all the data would compromise the Open Source principles, forever removing full reproducibility of AI ...Missing: controversies | Show results with:controversies
  9. [9]
    Open Source pioneer Perens says it's time to contemplate a Post ...
    Feb 7, 2024 · Open Source may have won, but it has also failed, says Open Source Initiative founder.
  10. [10]
    Open Source Initiative: AI Debate Roils Board Elections
    Mar 4, 2025 · A public fight has erupted over a candidate's exclusion from the ballot. Meanwhile, the debate over defining open source AI is causing continued turmoil.
  11. [11]
    Is Open Source Initiative Staring Into the Face of Irrelevancy?
    Mar 31, 2025 · To the extent that Open Source Initiative is known, today it is perhaps best known for controversy rather than for its guardianship of open source.Missing: achievements | Show results with:achievements
  12. [12]
    How I coined the term 'open source' | Opensource.com
    Feb 1, 2018 · I am the originator of the term "open source software" and came up with it while executive director at Foresight Institute.Missing: OSI | Show results with:OSI
  13. [13]
    Bruce Perens - The Open Source Definition - O'Reilly
    Raymond and I have since formed the Open Source Initiative, an organization exclusively for managing the Open Source campaign and its certification mark. At ...Bruce Perens · History · The Open Source Definition...
  14. [14]
    http://web.archive.org/web/19990117101010/http://opensource.org/
  15. [15]
    The License Proliferation Project - Open Source Initiative
    Over the years, the OSI received hundreds of licenses, discussed all of them, and approved approximately 60. This explosion of choice in licensing reflected ...
  16. [16]
    OSI and License Proliferation - Open Source Initiative
    Aug 27, 2008 · License proliferation is a hard problem because nobody wants to give up their favourite license and because it can be extremely difficult to ...
  17. [17]
    OSI Approves Microsoft Licenses – Open Source Initiative
    In a board meeting held October 10th, and announced today, the Open Source Initiative approved two of Microsoft's software licenses: the Microsoft Reciprocal ...
  18. [18]
    OSI approves two Microsoft shared source licenses | InfoWorld
    The board of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has approved two Microsoft licenses that allow proprietary source code to be shared, a move that is likely to ...
  19. [19]
    Open Source Initiative names first Executive Director
    Sep 8, 2021 · Stefano Maffulli as its first Executive Director. The appointment is a key step for the transformation of OSI into a professionally managed organization.Missing: 2006-2015 | Show results with:2006-2015
  20. [20]
    The Open Source Initiative names Stefano Maffulli as its ... - ZDNET
    Sep 8, 2021 · "Bringing Stefano Maffulli on board as OSI's first Executive Director is the culmination of a years-long march toward professionalization so ...<|separator|>
  21. [21]
    Celebrating 5 years at the Open Source Initiative: a journey of ...
    Nov 27, 2024 · Celebrating 5 years at the Open Source Initiative: a journey of growth, challenges, and community engagement – Open Source Initiative.Missing: 2006 2015<|separator|>
  22. [22]
    2023, governments scrutinize Open Source
    Jan 31, 2023 · This year we're expecting to see an acceleration of public policy development in several areas that will affect Open Source such as software integrity.Missing: 2016-2023 | Show results with:2016-2023
  23. [23]
    2023 in review: many reasons to celebrate - Open Source Initiative
    Dec 13, 2023 · Looking into its rich history, benefits, challenges, and current issues, with a particular focus on its influence in cultural transformation ...Missing: 2016-2023 | Show results with:2016-2023
  24. [24]
    Key insights from the 2025 State of Open Source Report
    Apr 10, 2025 · This report uncovers the latest trends, tensions, and transformations shaping how Open Source is adopted, managed, and scaled in organizations of all sizes.
  25. [25]
    The Open Source AI Definition is a step forward in defining ...
    Nov 1, 2024 · On Monday, the Open Source Initiative released version 1.0 of the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID). The definition is an important step in ...
  26. [26]
    The Open Source Initiative Announces the Release of the Industry's ...
    Oct 28, 2024 · The Open Source Definition (OSAID) v.1.0 is available for public use. The release of version 1.0 was announced today at All Things Open 2024.
  27. [27]
    The Open Source AI Definition – 1.0
    Open Source has demonstrated that massive benefits accrue to everyone after removing the barriers to learning, using, sharing and improving software systems.What Is Open Source Ai · Open Source Models And Open... · Definitions
  28. [28]
    Open Source AI
    An Open Source AI is a system that allows users to use, study, modify, and share it for any purpose, without needing permission.Open Weights · Data Governance in Open · OSAID Timeline · Read version 1.0
  29. [29]
    We finally have an 'official' definition for open source AI - TechCrunch
    or not ...Open Ai · Dissenting Opinions · Open Questions
  30. [30]
    Who or what is the intended audience for OSI's Open Source AI ...
    Oct 25, 2024 · The OSAID 1.0 represents a drastic change. It is focused on individual projects, not their licenses. It is required to provide documentation on ...
  31. [31]
    Open Forum for AI, Open Source Initiative respond to White House ...
    Jun 3, 2025 · The OFAI is a university-led, collaborative initiative that aims to bend the arc toward human-centered, responsible, transparent, and ethical AI.
  32. [32]
    Your support, our focus: The OSI's 2025 roadmap to a stronger Open ...
    Mar 18, 2025 · The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has released its strategic roadmap for 2025, outlining critical initiatives designed to reinforce its role as a central ...
  33. [33]
    https://opensource.org/blog/open-source-congress-2025-and-stakeholder-day-building-a-global-agenda-for-open-source
  34. [34]
    OSI charts next phase for the organization with executive director ...
    Sep 15, 2025 · Stefano Maffulli will be departing his role in October to expand his work on Open Source AI and data governance. Maffulli is currently working ...
  35. [35]
    Open Source Initiative Charts Next Phase for the Organization with ...
    Sep 15, 2025 · OSI plans to launch a comprehensive, inclusive process to select its next leader, ensuring continued growth and modernization. "Stefano helped ...
  36. [36]
    https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
  37. [37]
    OSI Approved Licenses - Open Source Initiative
    To be approved by the Open Source Initiative (also known as the OSI) a license must go through the Open Source Initiative's license review process. Search ...The MIT License · MIT No Attribution License · 1-clause BSD LicenseMissing: early 1998-2005
  38. [38]
    The License Review process - Open Source Initiative
    Mar 13, 2024 · The OSI License Review Process ensures that licenses and software labeled as “Open Source” conform to existing community norms and expectations.Overview Of The Process · How To Submit A Request · License Approval Standards
  39. [39]
    Open Source Initiative OSI - Certification Mark and Process
    Choose a unique title for your license, different from any known titles of licenses. · Render the license in two formats: HTML and plain text. · Create a legal ...<|separator|>
  40. [40]
    Top Open Source Licenses Explained - Mend.io
    Oct 9, 2025 · The Open Source Initiative (OSI) currently approves around 80 licenses, but only a handful dominate modern software development.
  41. [41]
    OSI readies controversial Open AI definition - LWN.net
    Oct 25, 2024 · Its board will be voting on the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) on Sunday, October 27, with the 1.0 version slated to be published on October ...Defining Open Source Ai · Preferred Form To Make... · Response To Criticisms<|separator|>
  42. [42]
    https://opensource.org/ai/open-weights
  43. [43]
    Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of “Open Source”
    Oct 31, 2024 · Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of “Open Source”. by ... While OSI claims their OSAID is humble, I beg to differ. The ...
  44. [44]
    The Case Against OSI's Open Source AI Definition - The New Stack
    Dec 5, 2024 · Perens stated unequivocally that the open source AI definition “is flawed,” and that OSI “hasn't done a great job and so weren't necessarily the ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  45. [45]
    Meta, OSI tussle over definition of open source AI - Axios
    Oct 29, 2024 · Meta took issue with a new definition of open source AI that would require model creators to detail their sources of training data, ...
  46. [46]
    2024 end-of-year review: Open Source AI Definition v1.0
    Dec 17, 2024 · The release of version 1.0 of the Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) marks an important milestone on a journey to ensure that AI systems are innovative.
  47. [47]
    Bylaws - Open Source Initiative
    It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for public educational purposes. ... legal entity and a natural person. ARTICLE XI AMENDMENTS.
  48. [48]
    Articles of Incorporation - Open Source Initiative
    It is organized under the Nonprofit Public Benefit Corporation Law for public purposes. ... status under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of ...
  49. [49]
    Organization & Operations - Open Source Initiative
    The Board of Directors is collectively responsible for OSI. Officers take responsibility for the overall direction of the Board's work.
  50. [50]
    OSI's board of directors in 2025: details about the elections
    Jan 22, 2025 · The OSI board of directors is renewing three of its seats with an open election process among its full individual members and affiliates.
  51. [51]
    Open Source Initiative - Full Filing - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica
    ... OPEN SOURCE INITIATIVE'S FISCAL SPONSORSHIP PROGRAM TO BECOME A STANDALONE LEGAL ENTITY. THE FLOSS DESKTOPS FOR KIDS PROJECT TEACHES STUDENTS COMPUTING BY ...
  52. [52]
    Responsibilities of OSI Board Directors - Open Source Initiative
    Responsibilities of OSI Board Directors · Current composition · Current directors · Anne-Marie Scott · Carlo Piana · Catharina Maracke · Chris Aniszczyk · Gaël ...Responsibilities Of Osi... · Current Composition · Catharina MarackeMissing: 2006-2015 | Show results with:2006-2015
  53. [53]
    Status: Board Member - Open Source Initiative
    Active board members include McCoy Smith (Director, Mar 2025-2027), Ruth Suehle (Director, Mar 2025-2028), Chris Aniszczyk (Director, Mar 2024-2026), and ...Missing: leadership | Show results with:leadership
  54. [54]
    Open Source Initiative Launches Executive Director Search as ...
    Sep 16, 2025 · The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is launching an executive director search following Stefano Maffulli's departure in October.Missing: 2016- | Show results with:2016-
  55. [55]
    How the election of Individual director works - Open Source Initiative
    Eligible candidates are all OSI individual members whose full membership was current (started or renewed and paid) no later than one week before the opening of ...
  56. [56]
    OSI election ends with unsatisfying results - LWN.net
    Mar 21, 2025 · The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has announced the results of its recent board of directors election. Ruth Suehle and McCoy Smith are new to ...<|separator|>
  57. [57]
    Announcing the new directors of OSI board - Open Source Initiative
    Mar 21, 2025 · Carlo Piana, Ruth Suehle, and McCoy Smith are the new OSI board directors. Carlo and Ruth were from affiliate polls, and McCoy from individual ...
  58. [58]
    OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025: Petition to Open Source ...
    We, the undersigned, petition the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to release the complete, unaltered results of its 2025 Board of Directors elections.
  59. [59]
    Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond
    Mar 10, 2020 · Banning the co-founder because you no longer wish to talk to them is pretty much the definition of a power grab.
  60. [60]
    Our supporters - Open Source Initiative
    Platinum. 1 - Bloomberg · 2 - Google Open Source · 5 - Microsoft ; Gold. 1 - Cisco · 2 - CapitalOne · 3 - GitHub · 4 - Intel · 6 - Red Hat · 7 - Sentry · Eclipse ...Missing: sources | Show results with:sources
  61. [61]
    Our team - Open Source Initiative
    Staff ; Deb Bryant · Simon Phipps, Standards & EU Policy Director ; Phyllis Dobbs · Nick Vidal, Community Manager ; Nick Vidal · Jordan Maris, EU Policy Analyst.Missing: 2006-2015 | Show results with:2006-2015
  62. [62]
    2024 Annual Report - Open Source Initiative
    The OSI published over 100 blog posts and contributed to 25+ events worldwide in 2024, holding 20+ talks and 20+ townhalls.Missing: financial | Show results with:financial
  63. [63]
    [PDF] 2023 Annual Report - Open Source Initiative
    Sustainability Goals. OSI's contributions to the DPGA's 2023 roadmap were published in their annual report. In the US the Open Policy Alliance was launched ...
  64. [64]
    Open Source Initiative - Nonprofit Explorer - News Apps - ProPublica
    Stefano Maffuli (Executive Director), $166,661, $0 ; Carlo Piana (Director), $0, $0 ; Catharina Maracke (Former President, Director), $0, $0 ; Thierry Carrez (Vice ...
  65. [65]
    Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source” - GNU.org
    The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of ...
  66. [66]
    Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software - GNU.org
    By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only.
  67. [67]
    Open Source Vs. Free Software - What Is The Difference? - Mend.io
    Nov 28, 2017 · Explore the difference between open source and free software in the tech industry. Learn about the origins, philosophies, and implications.
  68. [68]
    What are the philosophical differences between open source and ...
    Jul 4, 2015 · Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical ...
  69. [69]
    OSI's Simon Phipps on Open Source's Past and Future | Linux Journal
    Apr 11, 2018 · These days, the organization has ties with many major software vendors and receives most of its financial support from corporate sponsors.
  70. [70]
    OSAID — a hit to the open source initiative | by Datafund
    Nov 12, 2024 · The way the OSAID has been framed, it creates the impression that OSI set out to appease their corporate backers such as Amazon, Meta, Google ...
  71. [71]
    Open Source Software and Corporate Influence
    Feb 11, 2025 · Today, many open source projects do not place limits on the ability of corporations to capture their governance structures. For example, a ...
  72. [72]
    OSI leadership change signals a crossroads for OSAID - FindArticles
    Sep 16, 2025 · The shift in leadership at the Open Source Initiative comes at an interim phase for the Open Source AI Definition, opening new lines of ...
  73. [73]
    Open Source Initiative closes down board candidate - The Register
    Feb 28, 2025 · "The OSI acted too quickly to impose an overly ambitious policy compromise on the community. OSAID undeniably created a rift in the FOSS ...
  74. [74]
    Open source and its unpredictable path forward | Okoone
    Jan 10, 2025 · In the race to innovate, pragmatism is winning out over ideology.” OSI's struggle to define open source for AI. The Open Source Initiative has ...
  75. [75]
    The Open Source Initiative Has Many Scandals, We'll ... - Techrights
    Aug 17, 2025 · Open Source Initiative (OSI) hates facts. Months ago we said that we'd likely cover Open Source Initiative scandals until some time this month.
  76. [76]
    We have an official open-source AI definition now, but the fight is far ...
    Oct 30, 2024 · The Open Source Initiative (OSI) released Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) 1.0 on Oct. 28, 2024, at the All Things Open conference.
  77. [77]
    Open-source AI must reveal its training data, per new OSI definition
    Oct 28, 2024 · The Open Source Initiative (OSI) has released its official definition of “open” artificial intelligence, setting the stage for a clash with tech giants like ...
  78. [78]
    Repeated Mistakes Lead to Unfair OSI Elections - ebb.org
    Mar 3, 2025 · These mistakes and irregularities (particularly the second one below) have led to an unfair 2025 OSI Directors Election.
  79. [79]
    What do you think of the Open Source AI Definition? - Elections
    Mar 3, 2025 · The OSI's push to adopt its Open Source AI Definition (OSAID) has been a mistake. The OSI acted too quickly to impose an overly ambitious policy compromise on ...
  80. [80]
    https://www.siliconangle.com/2024/10/28/osi-clarifies-makes-ai-systems-open-source-open-models-fall-short/
  81. [81]
    Techrights — The Fall of the Open Source Initiative (OSI): Plenty of ...
    Mar 9, 2025 · "The credibility, reliability and accountability of the Open Source Initiative comes into question," the source said, "again." The OSI has been ...
  82. [82]
    Avoiding OSAID: Brock and Perens Reflect on a Year of Open ...
    Sep 30, 2025 · About a year ago the Open Source Initiative announced the first version of its Open Source AI Definition. ... OSI's answer was that ...Missing: influence | Show results with:influence
  83. [83]
    [PDF] 2024 State of Open Source Report - OpenLogic
    The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is the steward of the Open Source Definition, setting the foundation for the global open source ecosystem. Founded in 1998, OSI.
  84. [84]
    Programs – Open Source Initiative
    We define Open Source for developers, lawyers and users to simplify software development and procurement. Explore our activities.
  85. [85]
    Affiliate Organizations - Open Source Initiative
    OSI Affiliate organizations are nonprofit organizations, open source projects & communities, educational institutions (K12 & Higher Ed.), and user groups.
  86. [86]
    Open Source Hong Kong Becomes an OSI Affiliate Member – Open ...
    “OSHK mission is promoting Open Source Software projects in Hong Kong and foster its development by connecting to the global open source community. In joining ...
  87. [87]
    The .NET Foundation Joins the Open Source Initiative's Affiliate ...
    Oct 20, 2020 · Affiliate members participate directly in the direction and development of the OSI through board elections and incubator projects that support ...
  88. [88]
    The five stages of the Open Source Program Office
    Aug 3, 2022 · A walk through the different stages of an OSPO · Stage 0: Adopting Open Source ad-hoc · Stage 1 (Legal driven): Providing Open Source compliance, ...
  89. [89]
    Hacktoberfest and the OSI: Growing Open Source adoption
    Oct 2, 2025 · Why Hacktoberfest matters to OSI. The OSI exists to ensure that Open Source software, and the communities that build it, continue to thrive.<|separator|>
  90. [90]
    The OSI First to Endorse United Nations Open Source Principles
    Feb 26, 2025 · The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is the steward of the Open Source Definition, setting the foundation for the global Open Source ecosystem.
  91. [91]
    How is Open Source Software Being Adopted Across the World?
    Jan 20, 2025 · In 2024, the top priority at 49% is open source alternatives to technology monopolies, followed by government adoption of open source at 40%, ...
  92. [92]
    Policy and standards program - Open Source Initiative
    We track key legislative developments – today primarily in Europe and the US – and offer our expertise where it may help.
  93. [93]
    Can you stop your open-source project from being used for evil?
    Aug 8, 2022 · The Open Source Initiative acknowledges that open-source licenses “may not discriminate against persons or groups. Giving everyone freedom ...Missing: limitations | Show results with:limitations
  94. [94]
    Intellectual Property, Computer Software and the Open Source ...
    Mar 11, 2004 · Some concerns have arisen concerning the relationship between open source software and intellectual property rights, including copyrights, patents and trade ...<|separator|>
  95. [95]
    The Failure of Open Source Initiative | Hacker News
    Aug 18, 2023 · The Open Source Initiative was often regarded as a one-man show as it has never had more than a single full-time employee at any time. This ...
  96. [96]
    OSI co-founder leaves initiative over new license - SD Times
    Jan 6, 2020 · Bruce Perens, co-founder of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), is removing himself from the organization over controversy with a new license.
  97. [97]
    Bruce Perens quits Open Source Initiative amid row over new data ...
    Jan 3, 2020 · OSI co-founder Bruce Perens to resign from the organization, for a second time, based on concern that OSI members have already made up their minds.Missing: overreach | Show results with:overreach<|separator|>
  98. [98]
    Don't Rely on OSI Approval — /dev/lawyer
    May 5, 2019 · The list of OSI-approved licenses reflects OSI's practical and political history, not any useful, consistently functional category of license terms.Missing: overreach | Show results with:overreach
  99. [99]
    Is it time to revise the Open Source Definition? | Opensource.com
    Sep 30, 2020 · The OSI's authority to say what open source means and the continuing relevance of the OSD have been called into question by a number of critics ...Missing: overreach | Show results with:overreach