OSI
The Open Source Initiative, founded in 1998, is the authoritative body responsible for defining and certifying open-source software through the Open Source Definition (OSD). In 2024, it formally published the Open Source AI Definition 1.0, extending its standards to AI systems.
Core Facts
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) released the official definition of 'Open Source AI' in 2024, explicitly requiring the disclosure of training data and complete methodology.
Open-sourcing large AI models encompasses not only code, but also model weights, training datasets, technical papers, and even training recipes
Elastic License 2.0 prohibits offering the software as a managed service to third parties and does not conform to the OSI open source definition.
Timeline (last 90 days)
The Muse Model License is not an OSI-approved standard open-source license.
When evaluating a project named Open, it is necessary to distinguish whether it is open source as defined by the OSI, or merely refers to open API, open data or open weights.
Gemma is governed by Google's Gemma Terms of Use and is open-weight rather than an OSI-approved open-source license.
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) does not recognize the BSL as a license that meets the Open Source Definition, and the BSL is regarded by the community as a source-available license rather than a truly open-source one.
The weights of Meta's LLaMA series models are accessible to researchers, but come with commercial use restrictions and do not meet OSI's full open-source definition.
Llama 3 relaxed the license restrictions to some extent compared to Llama 2, but it is still not an OSI-certified standard open-source license.
Strictly speaking, licenses with commercial restrictions are not recognized as open-source licenses by the OSI (Open Source Initiative).
Open Source typically follows OSI-certified licenses (such as MIT and GPL), which explicitly grant users the rights to freely use, modify, and distribute the code.
Licenses with additional commercial restrictions are legally referred to as source-available licenses or Business Source Licenses (BSL); once revenue restrictions or competitive restriction clauses are included, they no longer qualify as open source under OSI standards.
In May of this year, G7 digital ministers collaborated with OSI for three months to build a four-level ladder of model openness: weights accessible, open weights, open-source AI, and open-source plus open data.
8 more timeline events
All Facts (20)
The Open Source Initiative (OSI) released the official definition of 'Open Source AI' in 2024, explicitly requiring the disclosure of training data and complete methodology.
90%VerifiedOpen-sourcing large AI models encompasses not only code, but also model weights, training datasets, technical papers, and even training recipes
70%VerifiedElastic License 2.0 prohibits offering the software as a managed service to third parties and does not conform to the OSI open source definition.
65%Verified开放权重模型仅发布训练完成的模型参数文件，而严格意义的开源AI要求公开训练代码、数据集与完整复现流程
65%VerifiedSSPL and BSL licenses are generally considered by OSI as not meeting the open source definition, and the industry refers to them as source-available rather than truly open source.
65%UnverifiedMeta's Llama series makes model weights publicly available, but the license agreement has certain restrictions on commercial use and derivative models, making it open weights rather than open source in the traditional sense.
60%UnverifiedSSPL (Server Side Public License) was introduced by MongoDB in 2018 and requires any company providing the software as a service to open-source its entire service stack; this provision was deemed by OSI to not conform to the open source definition.
60%UnverifiedIn 1998, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, and others proposed the term 'Open Source' and founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI).
60%Unverified开放权重（Open Weight）仅指模型的参数权重文件可供下载和使用，但训练数据、完整训练代码、RLHF标注数据等核心资产往往并不公开，与真正意义上的开源（Open Source）存在区别
60%UnverifiedThe "open source" in OSINT does not refer to open-source software, but rather to "open sources" in the intelligence sense—meaning all legally and publicly accessible information channels.
60%UnverifiedThe Muse Model License is not an OSI-approved standard open-source license.
50%UnverifiedWhen evaluating a project named Open, it is necessary to distinguish whether it is open source as defined by the OSI, or merely refers to open API, open data or open weights.
50%UnverifiedGemma is governed by Google's Gemma Terms of Use and is open-weight rather than an OSI-approved open-source license.
50%UnverifiedThe Open Source Initiative (OSI) does not recognize the BSL as a license that meets the Open Source Definition, and the BSL is regarded by the community as a source-available license rather than a truly open-source one.
50%UnverifiedThe weights of Meta's LLaMA series models are accessible to researchers, but come with commercial use restrictions and do not meet OSI's full open-source definition.
50%UnverifiedLlama 3 relaxed the license restrictions to some extent compared to Llama 2, but it is still not an OSI-certified standard open-source license.
50%UnverifiedStrictly speaking, licenses with commercial restrictions are not recognized as open-source licenses by the OSI (Open Source Initiative).
50%UnverifiedOpen Source typically follows OSI-certified licenses (such as MIT and GPL), which explicitly grant users the rights to freely use, modify, and distribute the code.
50%UnverifiedLicenses with additional commercial restrictions are legally referred to as source-available licenses or Business Source Licenses (BSL); once revenue restrictions or competitive restriction clauses are included, they no longer qualify as open source under OSI standards.
50%UnverifiedFor personal open-source projects, choosing a traditional OSI-certified license is safer than opting for newer licenses such as SSPL or BSL.
50%