{"id":15966,"date":"2025-04-08T21:37:55","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T19:37:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/2025\/04\/08\/there-are-no-degrees-of-open-why-openness-is-binary\/"},"modified":"2025-04-13T22:02:35","modified_gmt":"2025-04-13T20:02:35","slug":"there-are-no-degrees-of-open-why-openness-is-binary","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/2025\/04\/08\/there-are-no-degrees-of-open-why-openness-is-binary\/","title":{"rendered":"There are no \u201cDegrees of Open\u201d: why Openness is binary"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>In conversations around Open Source AI, a familiar idea keeps surfacing: that \u201copenness is a spectrum.\u201d It sounds convenient, especially when trying to reconcile proprietary data or partially open models with the ideals of Open Source. But let\u2019s be clear: this is a flawed premise\u2014and one the Open Source community must push back on.<\/p>\n<p>Freedom isn\u2019t a sliding scale<\/p>\n<p>The concept of freedom lies at the heart of Open Source. And freedom, by its very nature, is binary. You either have it, or you don\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p>Software that carries restrictions on usage, modification, redistribution, or access to its building blocks (like data or model weights) isn\u2019t partially open. It\u2019s not Open Source at all. Those conditions\u2014ethical restrictions, commercial limitations, time-delayed releases\u2014are forms of restriction, not openness.<\/p>\n<p>The Definition is clear\u2014for a reason<\/p>\n<p>The Open Source Definition exists precisely to make this boundary clear. It doesn\u2019t weigh licenses on a sliding scale of freedom\u2014it simply asks: does the license grant the freedoms to use, study, modify, and share the code?<\/p>\n<p>If it does, it\u2019s Open Source. If is does not, it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p>The same must apply to AI systems. If a model is released without detailing its training data, or under terms that limit how it can be used or shared, it doesn\u2019t matter how \u201copen\u201d it feels\u2014it hasn\u2019t crossed the line into true freedom.<\/p>\n<p>Projects differ\u2014their freedom doesn\u2019t<\/p>\n<p>Open Source isn\u2019t about uniformity. Projects can look wildly different while still being genuinely open. SQLite has no public roadmap and few contributors. Kubernetes is backed by a global foundation with a sophisticated governance model. Both are Open Source.<\/p>\n<p>Some projects embed ethical missions (like the UN\u2019s Sustainable Development Goals), others are commercially driven. These values are layered on top of freedom\u2014not prerequisites for it. As a user or contributor, you are free to value what you want in a project, because Open Source grants you that freedom in the first place.<\/p>\n<p>Learning from the \u201cLost Decade\u201d<\/p>\n<p>During the rise of cloud and mobile computing, Open Source didn\u2019t fully address the consequences of large-scale commercial adoption. Massive platforms forked Open Source projects and repackaged them into proprietary services with little community contribution. This era\u2014Open Source\u2019s \u201clost decade\u201d\u2014offers a lesson for AI.<\/p>\n<p>We must not make the same mistake again. If we blur the line between open and closed, we risk enabling centralized control behind a fa\u00e7ade of openness.<\/p>\n<p>Upholding Open Source principles<\/p>\n<p>For AI to be truly Open Source, it must uphold the same principles that have defined Open Source software for over two decades. There is no \u201c80% open\u201d or \u201copen enough.\u201d The freedom to use, study, modify, and share isn\u2019t negotiable. It\u2019s either there, or it isn\u2019t.<\/p>\n<p>That clarity is what makes Open Source resilient, inclusive, and powerful.&#013;<br \/>\n&#013;<br \/>\nSource: opensource.org&#013;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>In conversations around Open Source AI, a familiar idea keeps surfacing: that \u201copenness is a spectrum.\u201d It sounds convenient, especially [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15966","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-mp"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15966","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15966"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15966\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15967,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15966\/revisions\/15967"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/plus.maciejpiasecki.info\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}