Notices by Esther Payne :bisexual_flag: (onepict@chaos.social)

The issue with this idea of consent with robots.txt as part of CC signals is the huge elephant in the room.

The current state of the web shows that AI crawlers do not respect robots.txt.

Tech bros don't really believe in consent.

I'm so disappointed with Creative Commons.

@aral Yeah we got it as well.

Although the subject line was a massive clue as it was a slur.

Thanks to @iank for creating the petition.

I've had concerns for a while about the direction the #OSI has been going with AI for a while. The publishing of the #OSAID weakens the #OpenSourceDefinition.

I'm not a member but the definition does require community participation in terms of the licences we choose and how we advocate for Open Source.

The recent board elections showed a disturbing pattern of obfuscation. We need to be able to trust Organisations that are meant to safeguard what Open source is.

It's surprising that the #OSI decided to obfuscate the election results and handwaved it as "oh it's STV you dont understand it".

Some of us participate in votes that have STV. Organisation's like Nominet use a third party Civitas and they publish the votes.

The election is done, but the OSI has damaged our trust.

A way to restore that trust for the community would be to publish the voting tallies in full.

There's a petition for the community to sign.

:BoostOK:

https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/

I have signed the Petition to the Open Source Initiative: Publish the Full 2025 Election Results.

Organisations that are meant to safeguard our licence definitions for the commons should be open.

This petition is as much a signal to let others know they aren't alone in their disquiet with the direction of the OSI.

It's not pointless, or a waste of time. If you feel the same about the lack of transparency with the election. Now's the time to sign.

#OpenSource #OSI

https://codeberg.org/OSI-Concerns/election-results-2025/commit/445cbe7b7fa35d2bd08cef3f5872e4f90448567b

@trdebunked I think tech always has an element of almost mysticism to outsiders.

Like with politicians thinking we can come up with a magic key so they can still have encryption but they can access those messages.

Or tech bros thinking they can automate moderation.

Take the magic away and it's clear that humans are inflicting their idea of what a society should be.

Computers aren't magic, but a lot of people think they are.

@trdebunked

But I take that quote as meaning we want to put some form of our hearts into what we do.

I don't want to build a tool that enables soulless decision making without accountability.

But I also think if you can't put your joys into what you do, it's never going to be that great either. True joy to me is being able to share that experience of joy with others.

@trdebunked When you focus on the line goes up and tech just taking over everything, you've made computers the thing.

You ignore the other things. You've not really got joy. Only the need to win over others.

@trdebunked I don't regret my path. The computer science degree was needed.

@dusnm @darkwiiplayer I've often thought about the difference between copyshops that do like clip art and artists.

I know some coders who are like artists, they code for the thing they want to see in the world.

But we also have the day job, where we code for the same thing that's in the world at the moment.

I like the idea of coding for the world that could be. Because thats encoding the change you want to see in the world.

@dusnm @darkwiiplayer

This is why I'd like UBI, when you do the think you love for a paycheck it does get a bit stressful.

http://onepict.com/20240409-sustain.html

@tangeek It definatley has a real resonance for me now.

There's a truth to why a lot of us are in FOSS or even why we code. It's about finding the world around us unacceptable. So we want to change it.

Any way we can. Sometimes I feel some of us have forgotten that feeling.

@froge some folks have always known. But I don't blame folks for wanting to make it better.

Especially because things like the Open Source Definition tend to matter in places like public funding for software development.

My project releases stuff under the GPL. Which we chose, but it's still a condition of our NGI funding to use an OSI approved licence.

The thing that gets me about the docusign palaver with the board agreements is that if the OSI were more in tune with the community they would have known that folks like NLNet dogfood opensource.

NLNet dogfood it to the point that when I signed my agreement with them, they were able to recommend 2 options to sign our agreement with them. At least one of which I think they funded.

For the OSI to not only use Proprietary software and mandate it shows just how much they don't represent FOSS.

@bkuhn @ed @richardfontana

That wording struck me as well. It appalled me reading that accusation. Especially when it's posted from an organisational account. It brings the OSIs reputation into further disrepute.

It felt like a deliberate attempt to besmirch candidates.

Not something you want from an organisation that is the custodian of the Open Source Definition, who's reason d'être is to say what is an open source license and isn't.

@rysiek Bradley's summarised some links here:

https://floss.social/@bkuhn/114195360315950230

When I started my journey in FOSS I came very much in on the Open Source side of the portmanteau.

I've moved over to the Free Software side. The organisations that represent our communities have let us down, badly.

As I said in mirror mirror:

"Some of us, who were attracted to FOSS for explicitly ethical, and political reasons appear to have misunderstood what the movement was about."

https://www.onepict.com/20250119-cobbles.html

With the recent #OSI election shenanigans, the fairy tale of FOSS is over.

As I also said in Mirror mirror:

"In FOSS we tell ourselves the comforting lie that what we do is ethical. Merely by writing code and releasing it under an Open Source Licence."

We licence our code under the GPL. It's a part of the conditions of our funding, we must release our code under an open source approved licence.

So I need that definition to be for the public benefit. For the organisation to be trustworthy.

The OSI has lost my trust and my projects trust. Now what do we do?

The OSIAID dilutes the Open Source definition and at a time when more and more public funding goes into AI. This needs to be a firmer definition.

Especially as governments start to use Large Language models to help their systems of government to make decisions.

Every thing needs to be open. The code, the weights and training data. These systems need to be fully auditable.

Especially for systems that service the public.

I'm appalled at the shenanigans with the election for the OSI board.