Replied to Johannes Näder
@johas @fsfe @clt_news @c3voc
Richtig guter Vortrag und #Openwashing ist ein wichtiges Thema im Bereich Open Science. Danke!
Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
#openwashing
1 post1 participant0 posts today
Es war toll für mich, dieses Jahr mit einem großartigen Team der @fsfe wieder bei den Chemnitzer Linux-Tagen dabei zu sein!
Die #CLT haben wieder mit einem vielfältigen Programm aufgewartet - zu oft musste ich mich zwischen zwei spannenden Beiträgen entscheiden. Zum Glück gibt es Aufzeichnungen! (Danke @clt_news und @c3voc !)
Meinen Talk zu #Openwashing gibt's hier:
https://media.fsfe.org/w/uDjX21M66BHiCia58ztt9H
Lasst uns genauer hinschauen und Openwashing entlarven!
CLT25: Openwashing ans Licht!
Continued thread
Update. From Julien Sobrier: "We need a common understanding of what an open model means [for #AI and #LLMs]. We want to watch out for any #OpenWashing, as we saw it with free vs #OpenSource software."
https://www.artificialintelligence-news.com/news/endor-labs-ai-transparency-vs-open-washing/
AI News · Endor Labs: AI transparency vs ‘open-washing’As the AI industry focuses on transparency and security, debates around the true meaning of “openness” are intensifying.
It's extremely unfortunate that a small minority in the #OpenSource community who have previously spoken very favourably about Meta's #Llama, or even gone as far as labelling it as Open Source, are claiming the OSI's OSAID is what enabled #Meta's #Openwashing.
Meta's Open washing predates the OSAID, and OSI have been fighting it for almost two years now! The OSAID is the best tool to win that fight.
https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-license-is-still-not-open-source
Open Source InitiativeMeta’s LLaMa license is still not Open SourceAt a time when Meta is trying to redefine Open Source for their own benefit and at the expense of our freedom, we call on the whole Open Source community to unite and call out Meta’s open washing.
Replied in thread
@kdnyhan @mike
Yes. I called this #openwashing because it used the halo of openness or transparency to block regulations that would protect the environment and climate. (Medical studies on the harms of airborne pollution could not fully open their data, for reasons of medical privacy.) Here are the #OATP items I tagged with that sort of openwashing during the first #Trump administration.
https://tagteam.harvard.edu/hubs/oatp/item_search?q=(%23oa.trump+OR+%23oa.epa)+AND+%23oa.trump
But note that #Project2025 calls for both (1) this older kind of #EPA openwashing and (2) direct, unembargoed #OpenAccess (or #PublicAccess) to EPA-funded research, echoing the Biden-era #NelsonMemo. See p 439: "Add teeth to long-standing executive orders, memoranda, recommendations, and other policies to require that EPA regulations are based on transparent, reproducible science as well as that the data and publications resulting from taxpayer-funded activities are made immediately available to the public."
https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf
Nu een brainstorm gedeelte met de Europese Commisie. Het gaat in essentie om #openwashing en hoe de EU met dit groeiende probleem om moet gaan. #fosdem #fosdem25
Llama is een voorbeeld van #openwashing door Meta. Over openwashing gaat het volgende praatje. #fosdem #fosdem25
Replied in thread
@naderman
Anyone who? I find the use of 'open source' in most cases (including Meta) is a marketing choice, exactly as for the word open in OpenAI company name. Of course Meta models are surely less closed than those of OpenAI, but that's all.
#openwashing
I'm starting a #Mastodon thread on the new #Trump administration's actions and positions on #OpenAccess to research.
I posted frequently about the actions of his first administration. But I did it on #Twitter / #X, which I no longer use.
Also see this wiki page where I'm collecting my old Twitter posts on his first term and my new Mastodon posts on his second term.
https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/The_Trump_administrations_on_open_access_to_research
For updates, watch this space.
cyber.harvard.eduThe Trump administrations on open access to research - Harvard Open Access Project
Continued thread
it may not be perfect, but it gives us a chance to overcome the wave of #openwashing which poses a fundamental threat to Open Source. The @osi will continue to work to improve it in the coming year.
Replied in thread
I might boost... IF ONLY #NextCloud had not endorsed #OSAID, the #OpenWashing #AI definition published by #OSI on behalf of its sponsors.
Now I don't know if NextCloud can be trusted anymore.
Replied to petersuber
@petersuber@fediscience.org
Interesting collection of facts, but I think most of the apparent contraddictions disappear if you consider #copyright as a tool and culture/knowledge as the good contended in the war.
You can easily place all actors in this war along a line between two poles: those who want to maximize public elaboration of knowledge/culture (through the public discourse and content exchange) and those who want seize/control the knowledge/culture available (controlling the public discourse and content exchange).
This way you can see how both #BigTech and the publishing industry are on the same side, share the same values and are more then happy to sign contracts with each other, as long as they can raise the respective profits.
On the other side you see developers who adopt #copyleft (that is based on copyright) and people serious on moral rights even when they adopt permissive licenses, together with people who just want to read books or see films for free.
To both groups copyright is a tool or an issue depending on the particular goal they are pursuing in a given moment.
#Meta want to control knowledge and culture, so it downplay copyright when it train its #AI models, but it enforce it when it release them under non-competition license agreements.
A hacker might workaround a flawed #DRM protection while releasing the code under a strong copyleft.
A teacher might avoid copyrighted materials while teching to students the skills required to workaround DRM.
Tons of combinations of interests exist that make people and organizations moving between these poles.
Yet all gravitate along these two poles.
With this framing another apparent issue becomes simple to explain: all corporations want to retain as much control as possible over their own cultural artifacts (been them software, contents or whatever) while they are eagger to use/abuse those of everybody else (including competitors).
Framing the war just in term of copyright maximalism/minimalism hide such important detail that in turn explain why many creators react to corporate abuse requiring stricter copyright protection, stricter moral rights and so on.
It can also explain why #Google, #Microsoft, #Meta and #Amazon sponsor #OSI (#OpenSource Initiative who recently released the #OpenWashing #AI definition #OSAID) and #CreativeCommons.
In short, its not a war about copyright: copyright is just a weapon in that war, just like crawlers or suggestion algorithms in social media.
It's a war for (or against) the control of human culture and knowledge.
@mcp@poliversity.it
@technollama@bird.makeup
Interesting collection of facts, but I think most of the apparent contraddictions disappear if you consider #copyright as a tool and culture/knowledge as the good contended in the war.
You can easily place all actors in this war along a line between two poles: those who want to maximize public elaboration of knowledge/culture (through the public discourse and content exchange) and those who want seize/control the knowledge/culture available (controlling the public discourse and content exchange).
This way you can see how both #BigTech and the publishing industry are on the same side, share the same values and are more then happy to sign contracts with each other, as long as they can raise the respective profits.
On the other side you see developers who adopt #copyleft (that is based on copyright) and people serious on moral rights even when they adopt permissive licenses, together with people who just want to read books or see films for free.
To both groups copyright is a tool or an issue depending on the particular goal they are pursuing in a given moment.
#Meta want to control knowledge and culture, so it downplay copyright when it train its #AI models, but it enforce it when it release them under non-competition license agreements.
A hacker might workaround a flawed #DRM protection while releasing the code under a strong copyleft.
A teacher might avoid copyrighted materials while teching to students the skills required to workaround DRM.
Tons of combinations of interests exist that make people and organizations moving between these poles.
Yet all gravitate along these two poles.
With this framing another apparent issue becomes simple to explain: all corporations want to retain as much control as possible over their own cultural artifacts (been them software, contents or whatever) while they are eagger to use/abuse those of everybody else (including competitors).
Framing the war just in term of copyright maximalism/minimalism hide such important detail that in turn explain why many creators react to corporate abuse requiring stricter copyright protection, stricter moral rights and so on.
It can also explain why #Google, #Microsoft, #Meta and #Amazon sponsor #OSI (#OpenSource Initiative who recently released the #OpenWashing #AI definition #OSAID) and #CreativeCommons.
In short, its not a war about copyright: copyright is just a weapon in that war, just like crawlers or suggestion algorithms in social media.
It's a war for (or against) the control of human culture and knowledge.
@mcp@poliversity.it
@technollama@bird.makeup
Replied to petersuber
@petersuber@fediscience.org
Interesting collection of facts, but I think most of the apparent contraddictions disappear if you consider #copyright as a tool and culture/knowledge as the good contended in the war.
You can easily place all actors in this war along a line between two poles: those who want to maximize public elaboration of knowledge/culture (through the public discourse and content exchange) and those who want seize/control the knowledge/culture available (controlling the public discourse and content exchange).
This way you can see how both #BigTech and the publishing industry are on the same side, share the same values and are more then happy to sign contracts with each other, as long as they can raise the respective profits.
On the other side you see developers who adopt #copyleft (that is based on copyright) and people serious on moral rights even when they adopt permissive licenses, together with people who just want to read books or see films for free.
To both groups copyright is a tool or an issue depending on the particular goal they are pursuing in a given moment.
#Meta want to control knowledge and culture, so it downplay copyright when it train its #AI models, but it enforce it when it release them under non-competition license agreements.
A hacker might workaround a flawed #DRM protection while releasing the code under a strong copyleft.
A teacher might avoid copyrighted materials while teching to students the skills required to workaround DRM.
Tons of combinations of interests exist that make people and organizations moving between these poles.
Yet all gravitate along these two poles.
With this framing another apparent issue becomes simple to explain: all corporations want to retain as much control as possible over their own cultural artifacts (been them software, contents or whatever) while they are eagger to use/abuse those of everybody else (including competitors).
Framing the war just in term of copyright maximalism/minimalism hide such important detail that in turn explain why many creators react to corporate abuse requiring stricter copyright protection, stricter moral rights and so on.
It can also explain why #Google, #Microsoft, #Meta and #Amazon sponsor #OSI (#OpenSource Initiative who recently released the #OpenWashing #AI definition #OSAID) and #CreativeCommons.
In short, its not a war about copyright: copyright is just a weapon in that war, just like crawlers or suggestion algorithms in social media.
It's a war for (or against) the control of human culture and knowledge.
@technollama@bird.makeup @mcp@poliversity.it
Interesting collection of facts, but I think most of the apparent contraddictions disappear if you consider #copyright as a tool and culture/knowledge as the good contended in the war.
You can easily place all actors in this war along a line between two poles: those who want to maximize public elaboration of knowledge/culture (through the public discourse and content exchange) and those who want seize/control the knowledge/culture available (controlling the public discourse and content exchange).
This way you can see how both #BigTech and the publishing industry are on the same side, share the same values and are more then happy to sign contracts with each other, as long as they can raise the respective profits.
On the other side you see developers who adopt #copyleft (that is based on copyright) and people serious on moral rights even when they adopt permissive licenses, together with people who just want to read books or see films for free.
To both groups copyright is a tool or an issue depending on the particular goal they are pursuing in a given moment.
#Meta want to control knowledge and culture, so it downplay copyright when it train its #AI models, but it enforce it when it release them under non-competition license agreements.
A hacker might workaround a flawed #DRM protection while releasing the code under a strong copyleft.
A teacher might avoid copyrighted materials while teching to students the skills required to workaround DRM.
Tons of combinations of interests exist that make people and organizations moving between these poles.
Yet all gravitate along these two poles.
With this framing another apparent issue becomes simple to explain: all corporations want to retain as much control as possible over their own cultural artifacts (been them software, contents or whatever) while they are eagger to use/abuse those of everybody else (including competitors).
Framing the war just in term of copyright maximalism/minimalism hide such important detail that in turn explain why many creators react to corporate abuse requiring stricter copyright protection, stricter moral rights and so on.
It can also explain why #Google, #Microsoft, #Meta and #Amazon sponsor #OSI (#OpenSource Initiative who recently released the #OpenWashing #AI definition #OSAID) and #CreativeCommons.
In short, its not a war about copyright: copyright is just a weapon in that war, just like crawlers or suggestion algorithms in social media.
It's a war for (or against) the control of human culture and knowledge.
@technollama@bird.makeup @mcp@poliversity.it
Replied in thread
fediverse @SuperDicq @sun
>Like I don't know what the fuck lawmakers are smoking honestly. If you take a copyrighted work and digest it through a neural network that (makes it) a derivative work.
Are lawmakers actually considering allowing theft(*)? The micros(ha)ft-sponsored Open Source Initiative (#OSI) are #openwashing the theft, so its not as crazy a question as it sounds. thankfully there are people documenting the crime^ albeit with soft language.
People who resist have also liked Digital Feudalism Counter Action firewall for linux (#iptables).
* theft perpetrated by their state-sponsored corporate sponsors (yes is circular). Aside from the theft of intellectual property from the internet, all "ai" systems are served by the corporate state right now. That's goog, micros(ha)ft, scamazon, clodflare, falsebook, I've not seen a SINGLE one that isn't designed to invade a person's privacy on behalf of the digital slavers. Every time u use an "ai" system u are giving the #corporateState irrevocable power and control over u, your thought processes, and all the people u love and who love u.... well done
^ Why ‘open’ AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters (D.Widder et al, 5 December 2024)
nadeko.net Git ServerdfcaStop waiting for politicians to enforce antitrust. Digital Feudalism Counter Action (DFCA Antitrust Law) blocks Google, Amazon, Facebook, Cloudflare, Apple, Oracle, Akamai, Alibaba, Tencent, Musk and Microsoft, with a popup when a program tries to contact them.
Am 4.12. fand im #Bundestag eine Expert:innen-Anhörung des #Digitalausschuss unter Leitung unseres Beiratsmitglieds @TabeaRoessner zum Thema „Open Source“ statt.
Es wurde erneut, u.a. von der @fsfe untermauert, dass es sich bei echter #OSS um #FreieSoftware handelt, welche alle 4 Freiheiten gewährt: Verwenden - Verstehen - Verbeiten - Verbessern.
4 Freiheiten = #OpenSource
<4 Freiheiten = #OpenWashing
Weiterlesen: https://bundesverband-smart-city.org/open-source
More openwashing from the timebank software world.
"After Edgar's passing in 2021, TimeBanks.Org sought to replace their outdated timebanking software, which had fallen behind in adopting modern digital standards. They searched worldwide for a technology partner and found Made Open."
https://cothrive.timebanks.org/tbo
Ah! They realised their mistake with CommunityWeaver 3 and went back to commissioning software from a company committed to. Open Source. Nope.
(1/2)
cothrive.timebanks.orgTimeBanks.Org - Made OpenYou need to select a meta description
Und wenn wir schon bei «Open» sind: «Offen» ist nicht immer gleich «offen», ganz besonders, wenn ein «offen!»-Aufkleber auf dem Produkt die Spielregeln ändert. Um so wichtiger ist Klarheit bei #KI, schreiben @davidthewid, @Mer__edith und @swest in #Nature und kämpfen damit gegen #OpenWashing.
NatureWhy ‘open’ AI systems are actually closed, and why this matters - NatureA review of the literature on artificial intelligence systems to examine openness reveals that open AI systems are actually closed, as they are highly dependent on the resources of a few large corporate actors.
#lifehacking si vous voulez que votre code soit fusionné à un dépôt open source, causez davantage avec les gens qui gèrent le dépôt avant de coder quoi que ce soit.
et passez au moins autant de temps à causer qu'à coder, sans quoi les chances de fusionner risquent d'être très faibles.
on ne dirait pas comme ça mais l'open source c'est bien plus de discussions que de code.
et pour les mainteneurs, aidez les gens à contribuer en baissant les barrières à l'entrée de la participation, n'attendez pas que du code comme contribution, sinon vous faites juste de l'open washing quand vous dites "les pull request sont bienvenues, RTFM".
The #LLM's boast #openness, but without training #data, it’s just a hollow claim 
. #Openwashing and restricted access perpetuate privacy risks and stifle innovation 
. https://republa.net/the-illusion-of-openness-in-large-language-models-openwashing/
republa.net · The illusion of openness in large language models (LLMs) 🎭 - by Rolands UmbrovskisLLMs claim to be "open," but without access to training data, it’s a facade. Openwashing, privacy risks, and restricted access hinder true AI transparency.