Cailean Osborne

Cailean Osborne

Companies claim to "democratise" artificial intelligence (AI) when they donate AI open source software (OSS) to non-profit foundations or release AI models, among others, but what does this term mean and why do they do it? As the impact of AI on society and the economy grows, understanding the commercial incentives behind AI democratisation efforts is crucial for ensuring these efforts serve broader interests beyond commercial agendas. Towards this end, this study employs a mixed-methods approach to investigate commercial incentives for 43 AI OSS donations to the Linux Foundation. It makes contributions to both research and practice. It contributes a taxonomy of both individual and organisational social, economic, and technological incentives for AI democratisation. In particular, it highlights the role of democratising the governance and control rights of an OSS project (i.e., from one company to open governance) as a structural enabler for downstream goals, such as attracting external contributors, reducing development costs, and influencing industry standards, among others. Furthermore, OSS donations are often championed by individual developers within companies, highlighting the importance of the bottom-up incentives for AI democratisation. The taxonomy provides a framework and toolkit for discerning incentives for other AI democratisation efforts, such as the release of AI models. The paper concludes with a discussion of future research directions.

Matt White, Ibrahim Haddad, Cailean Osborne et al.

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) offers numerous opportunities for research and innovation, but its commercialization has raised concerns about the transparency and safety of frontier AI models. Most models lack the necessary components for full understanding, auditing, and reproducibility, and some model producers use restrictive licenses whilst claiming that their models are "open source". To address these concerns, we introduce the Model Openness Framework (MOF), a three-tiered ranked classification system that rates machine learning models based on their completeness and openness, following open science principles. For each MOF class, we specify code, data, and documentation components of the model development lifecycle that must be released and under which open licenses. In addition, the Model Openness Tool (MOT) provides a user-friendly reference implementation to evaluate the openness and completeness of models against the MOF classification system. Together, the MOF and MOT provide timely practical guidance for (i) model producers to enhance the openness and completeness of their publicly-released models, and (ii) model consumers to identify open models and their constituent components that can be permissively used, studied, modified, and redistributed. Through the MOF, we seek to establish completeness and openness as core tenets of responsible AI research and development, and to promote best practices in the burgeoning open AI ecosystem.

Cailean Osborne

Governments are increasingly funding open source software (OSS) development to support software security, digital sovereignty, and national competitiveness in science and innovation, amongst others. However, little is known about how OSS developers evaluate the relative benefits and drawbacks of governmental funding for OSS. This study explores this question through a case study on scikit-learn, a Python library for machine learning, funded by public research grants, commercial sponsorship, micro-donations, and a 32 euro million grant announced in France's artificial intelligence strategy. Through 25 interviews with scikit-learn's maintainers and funders, this study makes two key contributions. First, it contributes empirical findings about the benefits and drawbacks of public and private funding in an impactful OSS project, and the governance protocols employed by the maintainers to balance the diverse interests of their community and funders. Second, it offers practical lessons on funding for OSS developers, governments, and companies based on the experience of scikit-learn. The paper concludes with key recommendations for practitioners and future research directions.

Cailean Osborne, Farbod Daneshyan, Runzhi He et al.

Companies, including market rivals, have long collaborated on the development of open source software (OSS), resulting in a tangle of co-operation and competition known as "open source co-opetition". While prior work investigates open source co-opetition in OSS projects that are hosted by vendor-neutral foundations, we have a limited understanding thereof in OSS projects that are hosted and governed by one company. Given their prevalence, it is timely to investigate open source co-opetition in such contexts. Towards this end, we conduct a mixed-methods analysis of three company-hosted OSS projects in the artificial intelligence (AI) industry: Meta's PyTorch (prior to its donation to the Linux Foundation), Google's TensorFlow, and Hugging Face's Transformers. We contribute three key findings. First, while the projects exhibit similar code authorship patterns between host and external companies (80%/20% of commits), collaborations are structured differently (e.g., decentralised vs. hub-and-spoke networks). Second, host and external companies engage in strategic, non-strategic, and contractual collaborations, with varying incentives and collaboration practices. Some of the observed collaborations are specific to the AI industry (e.g., hardware-software optimizations or AI model integrations), while others are typical of the broader software industry (e.g., bug fixing or task outsourcing). Third, single-vendor governance creates a power imbalance that influences open source co-opetition practices and possibilities, from the host company's singular decision-making power (e.g., the risk of license change) to their community involvement strategy (e.g., from over-control to over-delegation). We conclude with recommendations for future research.