https://www.theregister.com/2024/10/25/opinion_open_washing/ # # Sign in / up The Register(r) -- Biting the hand that feeds IT # # # Topics Security Security All SecurityCyber-crimePatchesResearchCSO (X) Off-Prem Off-Prem All Off-PremEdge + IoTChannelPaaS + IaaSSaaS (X) On-Prem On-Prem All On-PremSystemsStorageNetworksHPCPersonal TechCxOPublic Sector (X) Software Software All SoftwareAI + MLApplicationsDatabasesDevOpsOSesVirtualization (X) Offbeat Offbeat All OffbeatDebatesColumnistsScienceGeek's GuideBOFHLegalBootnotesSite NewsAbout Us (X) Special Features Special Features All Special Features Cybersecurity Month VMware Explore Blackhat and DEF CON Cloud Infrastructure Month Malware Month The Reg in Space Spotlight on RSA Vendor Voice Vendor Voice Vendor Voice All Vendor Voice GE Vernova with AWS GE Vernova with AWS Siemens and AWS Gen AI Siemens and AWS IT/OT Amazon Web Services (AWS) New Horizon in Cloud Computing DDN Google Cloud Data Transformation Google Gemini Hewlett Packard Enterprise: Edge-to-Cloud Platform Intel vPro VMware (X) Resources Resources Whitepapers Webinars & Events Newsletters [columnists] Columnists 22 comment bubble on white The open secret of open washing - why companies pretend to be open source 22 comment bubble on white Allowing pretenders to co-opt the term is bad for everyone icon Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols Fri 25 Oct 2024 // 18:05 UTC # Opinion If you believe Mark Zuckerberg, Meta's AI large language model (LLM) Llama 3 is open source. It's not, despite what he says. The Open Source Initiative (OSI) spells it out in the Open Source Definition, and Llama 3's license - with clauses on litigation and branding - flunks it on several grounds. Meta, unfortunately, is far from unique in wanting to claim that some of its software and models are open source. Indeed, the concept has its own name: open washing. [columnists] This is a deceptive practice in which companies or organizations present their products, services, or processes as "open" when they are not truly open in the spirit of transparency, access to information, participation, and knowledge sharing. This term is modeled after "greenwashing" and was coined by Michelle Thorne, an internet and climate policy scholar, in 2009. [columnists] [columnists] With the rise of AI, open washing has become commonplace, as shown in a recent study. Andreas Liesenfeld and Mark Dingemanse of Radboud University's Center for Language Studies surveyed 45 text and text-to-image models that claim to be open. The pair found that while a handful of lesser-known LLMs, such as AllenAI's OLMo and BigScience Workshop + HuggingFace with BloomZ could be considered open, most are not. Would it surprise you to know that according to the study, the big-name ones from Google, Meta, and Microsoft aren't? I didn't think so. But why do companies do this? Once upon a time, companies avoided open source like the plague. Steve Ballmer famously proclaimed in 2001 that "Linux is a cancer," because: "The way the license is written, if you use any open source software, you have to make the rest of your software open source." But that was a long time ago. Today, open source is seen as a good thing. Open washing enables companies to capitalize on the positive perception of open source and open practices without actually committing to them. This can help improve their public image and appeal to consumers who value transparency and openness. [columnists] Some corporations use open washing to shield their models and practices from scientific and regulatory scrutiny while benefiting from the "open" label. Another major factor is that the EU AI Act provides special exemptions for "open source" models. This creates a powerful incentive for open washing: if their models count as open, they'll have far less restrictive requirements. That, in turn, means they'll need less money to meet regulatory requirements or have to clean their datasets of copyright and other intellectual property (IP) issues. However, the EU still doesn't have a clear definition of open source AI. In all fairness, no one does yet. The OSI will release its open source AI definition in the next few days. That said, the current crop of open washing licenses fail by anyone's definition - other than their creators. [columnists] That's not to say all the big-name AI companies are lying about their open source street cred. For example, IBM's Granite 3.0 LLMs really are open source under the Apache 2 license. Why is this important? Why do people like me insist that we properly use the term open source? It's not like, after all, the OSI is a government or regulatory organization. It's not. It's just a nonprofit that has created some very useful guidelines. * WinAmp's woes will pass, but its wonders will be here forever * Elon Musk's disaster relief promises: Should we believe the hype? * OpenAI reportedly considering for-profit plans, but what would that be good for? * CockroachDB scurries off to proprietary software land As Dan Lorenc, CEO of security company Chainguard, said in his keynote speech at the Secure Open Source Software (SOSS) Fusion Conference in Atlanta this week, no one can "force you to use the OSI's definitions." But "fortunately, many people, particularly lawyers, believe in this definition. They trust the work that the OSI does, and they trust and understand the protections that companies are granted when they use these licenses when they meet the open source criteria. That's why we see it showing up in procurement contracts of big companies all over the world." Open source isn't just a legal and business matter. Open source gives developers the freedom to operate the way they do. Without it, they'll "lose the benefits that we've all grown accustomed to of being able to freely use code without having to know about or care about all the different terms in these licenses." If we need to check every license for every bit of code, "developers are going to go to legal reviews every time you want to use a new library. Companies are going to be scared to publish things on the internet if they're not clear about the liabilities they're encountering when that source code becomes public." Lorenc continued: "You might think this is only a big company problem, but it's not. It's a shared problem. Everybody who uses open source is going to be affected by this. It could cause entire projects to stop working. Security bugs aren't going to get fixed. Maintenance is going to get a lot harder. We must act together to preserve and defend the definition of open source. Otherwise, the lawyers are going to have to come back. No one wants the lawyers to come back." I must add that I know a lot of IP lawyers. They do not need or want these headaches. Real open source licenses make life easier for everyone: businesses, programmers, and lawyers. Introducing "open except for someone who might compete with us" or "open except for someone who might deploy the code on a cloud" is just asking for trouble. In the end, open washing will dirty the legal, business, and development work for everyone. Including, ironically, the shortsighted companies now supporting this approach. After all, almost all their work, especially in AI, is ultimately based on open source. (r) Get our Tech Resources # Share More about * FOSS More like these x More about * FOSS Narrower topics * FOSDEM * Linux * One Way Forward Broader topics * Open Source * Richard Stallman * Software More about # Share 22 comment bubble on white COMMENTS More about * FOSS More like these x More about * FOSS Narrower topics * FOSDEM * Linux * One Way Forward Broader topics * Open Source * Richard Stallman * Software TIP US OFF Send us news --------------------------------------------------------------------- Other stories you might like Manifest file destiny: Declare your funding needs via JSON India-based stockbroker Zerodha pledges $1M a year for open source projects Software17 Oct 2024 | 2 Bitwarden's FOSS halo slips as new SDK requirement locks down freedoms Arguments continue but change suggests it's not Free Software anymore Applications24 Oct 2024 | 15 SuperHTML is here to rescue you from syntax errors, and it's FOSS Author would like to see a switch back to plain old static HTML. Us too Applications23 Oct 2024 | 91 Quantum computing is coming - are you ready? Are you prepared for the day that quantum computing breaks today's encryption? Sponsored Feature [columnists] Apple macOS 15 Sequoia is officially UNIX. If anyone cares... Explainer But what does that mean? OSes11 Oct 2024 | 59 Version 7.6 - the 'OpenBSD of Theseus' - released Ideal for black-clad ultra-minimalist types. You probably wouldn't like it OSes10 Oct 2024 | 32 Xfce 4.20 creeps toward Wayland support while Mint 22.1 polishes desktop routine A couple of FOSS goodies that should be ready for the festive season OSes7 Oct 2024 | 13 Valve powers up Arch Linux - because who needs Windows when you have a Steam Deck? Distro behind the handheld console announces corporate sponsorship OSes3 Oct 2024 | 47 Germany's Sovereign Tech Fund throws cash at FreeBSD and Samba EuroBSDCon Unix-like to work on infrastructure, SMB reimplementation on 'key milestones' OSes1 Oct 2024 | 48 GNOME 47 brings back some customization options, but let's not go crazy Release codenamed 'Denver' will hit Fedora and Ubuntu next month OSes30 Sep 2024 | 22 Linux kernel 6.11 lands with vintage TV support Open Source Summit Europe io_uring is getting more capable, and PREEMPT_RT is going mainstream OSes30 Sep 2024 | 11 The early bird gets a touch of nostalgia as Ubuntu 24.10 hits beta Fun retro tweaks, App Center facelift, and more as Oracular Oriole moves into view OSes25 Sep 2024 | 6 The Register icon Biting the hand that feeds IT About Us* * Contact us * Advertise with us * Who we are Our Websites* * The Next Platform * DevClass * Blocks and Files Your Privacy* * Cookies Policy * Privacy Policy * Ts & Cs * Do not sell my personal information Situation Publishing Copyright. All rights reserved (c) 1998-2024 no-js