Lunduke
News • Science & Tech
Firefox Money: Investigating the bizarre finances of Mozilla
Payments to nonexistent companies? Funding politics? Reliance on a single customer? And that's just for starters.
August 05, 2023
post photo preview

This article was originally published in December of 2022, exclusively for subscribers to The Lunduke Journal.  It is being re-published now -- free for all -- as the importance of this topic (and the bizarre questions surrounding Mozilla) continues to grow.


Mozilla, the Foundation behind the Firefox web browser, is absolutely mammoth — with over One Billion Dollars in assets.

  • Where does all that money come from?

  • Where is it being spent?

  • With Firefox marketshare in a nosedive, how is Mozilla reacting?

The Lunduke Journal spent some time with Mozilla’s financial disclosures and came away with some wild observations — bizarre expenditures (including to companies that don’t even seem to exist) and political organizations with no relationship to Mozilla’s core business.

There’s a lot here. Read to the end. It gets wild.

What, exactly, is Mozilla?

There seems to be a great deal of confusion about what sort of organization Mozilla actually is. Many seem to be under the impression that it is simply a Non-Profit focused on the development of Firefox. And, while that is partially true, it is only a small part of the much bigger picture.

At the top exists the Mozilla Foundation. A not-for-profit corporation that operates out of California.

The Mozilla Foundation is the sole owner (100%) of two for-profit corporations: Mozilla Corporation and MZLA Technologies Corporation.

Both the parent “Foundation” and the wholly owned “Corporation” are run by the same CEO and Executive Chair: Mitchell Baker.

In fact, the “not-for-profit” and “for-profit” aspects of Mozilla are so tightly intertwined that the auditors report makes a point of calling the collective group of three organizations simply “Mozilla”… and reports on their finances as a single entity.

One other misconception that many have is that Mozilla’s primary focus is the development of the Firefox web browser. That does not appear to be the case. These are the three “Areas of Focus” according to The Mozilla Foundation.

 

Rally Citizens. Connect Leaders. Shape the Agenda.

A strange set of areas to focus on, as you’ll see.

One other item to remember as we go through these details: Firefox market share has been in a free-fall for some time. Depending on the source, it fluctuates between 3% and 7% of the total web browser market.

How much money does Mozilla have?

As of 2021, Mozilla (including the Foundation and the wholly owned For-Profit Corporations), had total assets worth over $1.1 Billion USD. That’s Billion. With a B.

 

This includes close to $400 Million in cash. Overall assets jumped by roughly $200 Million over the previous year.

As you would expect with such numbers, Mozilla saw a significant increase in revenue in 2021. Up over $100 Million (to just over $600 Million).

 

At the same time as total revenue was skyrocketing, overall expenses went way (way) down. By roughly $100 Million. With the deepest cuts being focused in “Software development”.

 

To put it another way: If Mozilla stopped earning money today… it has enough assets to fund their current expenses for roughly 3 years. Thanks in large part to rising revenue combined with cutting software development work.

Where does that money come from?

If you look at the “Change in Net Assets” chart above, you’ll notice that the vast majority of revenue comes from “Royalties” ($527 Million), with advertising and subscriptions ($56 Million) and Contributions ($7 Million) as the next two largest line items.

“Contributions” is donations from people like you. Mozilla actively seeks donations because, as they put it, “We rely on donations to carry out our mission.”

 

It is worth noting that this statement is not true.

Mozilla does not, in fact, “rely on donations” to carry out their mission. In fact, if you removed donations from the yearly revenue entirely, it would have no impact on Mozilla’s ability to pay for any of their expenditures. And Mozilla could not pay more than a small fraction of their bills from the yearly donations.

Since “Royalties” makes up such a large percentage of Mozilla revenue, let’s drill into that a little bit. Royalties for what, exactly? According to the Foundation’s 2021 report:

“Royalties - Mozilla provides Firefox web browser, which is a free and open-source web browser initially developed by Mozilla Foundation and the Corporation. Mozilla incorporates search engines of its customers as a default status or an optional status available in the Firefox web browser. Mozilla generally receives royalties at a certain percentage of revenues earned by its customers through their search engines incorporated in the Firefox web browser.”

Got it. Search engine deals. That’s the cash cow. And, while the annual report is light on the details, it does provide this key bit of information…

“Approximately 83% and 86% of Mozilla’s revenues from customers with contracts were derived from one customer for the years ended December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively. Receivables from that one customer represented 69% and 73% of the December 31, 2021 and 2020 outstanding receivables, respectively.”

In other words: The vast majority (roughly 70%) of all of Mozilla’s yearly revenue comes from default search engine placement of just one customer.

That customer, while not named in the report, is obviously Google (and parent company, Alphabet).

Without that revenue, Mozilla could not continue to operate at their current level of expenditure without eating into their assets.

How much does their leadership earn?

While we’re on the topic of expenditures, it’s worth taking a small detour into the compensation of the Mozilla leadership. From the Mozilla Foundation’s 2021 Form 990:

 

The head of Mozilla earned roughly $5.6 Million during 2021. The rest of the executive team ranged, more or less, from $100k to $300k.

Interesting to note that the Mozilla CEO earned nearly as much ($5.6 M) as Mozilla received in donations ($7 M).

Also interesting that the CEO received a bonus of nearly $5 Million… considering the precarious position that Mozilla is in (being dependent on a single client continuing to pay for Search Engine placement). Unless there’s a secret deal going on, that looks like a company teetering on the edge to me. Strange to reward a CEO for that sort of future uncertainty.

Where, exactly, does all that money go?

Mozilla is a Billion dollar corporation. While their flagship product is the Firefox Web Browser, the software development needs of Firefox — including manpower, services, and other expenses — do not fully utilize the massive revenue of Mozilla.

Not by a long shot.

Which begs the question… what is all of that money being spent on?

Here is a short sampling, based on available public documentation, of exactly how much money is being spent… and where.

MCKENSIE MACK GROUP

 

During 2021, Mozilla paid $387 Thousand dollars to someone called “MCKENSIE MACK GROUP.”

“[Mckensie Mack Group] is a change management firm redefining innovation in the white-dominant change management industry.”

From their LinkedIn page, Mckensie Mack Group describes itself thusly: “Black-led and nonbinary-led, MMG is a global social justice organization”.

Mckensie Mack is a public speaker who regularly discusses her anger at “White Colonialism” and her dislike of “CIS” men and women. The “Mckensie Mack” company website blog primarily discusses abortion and Trans related issues.

Why would a company that develops a web browser want to pay her close to half a million dollars (in one year)? That remains unclear. It is, however, worth noting that this is a far larger expense than any of the executive team of Mozilla earn in salary (other than the CEO).

ACTION RESEARCH COLLABORATIVE

 

$100,000 was paid to an organization listed as “Action Research Collaborative.”

What, exactly, is “Action Research Collaborative”?

That is a surprisingly difficult question to find an answer to, as they have no website whatsoever.

One of the few references to it is in a Cornell newsletter from earlier this year, where one of the founders states that Action Research Collaborative is a “standing institutional home that can support action research projects that bring together researchers, community members and policymakers, to be able to work together and address pressing issues as they arise.”

Which… doesn’t really tell you much of anything. No product or project. No client. No website. Nothing.

That founder, Neil Lewis Jr., appears to have focused his career on “vaccine acceptance”, problems with “white” people, and his theory that “white people” can not be victims of discrimination.

What does this “Action Research Collaborative” actually do? Why would Mozilla need their services and be willing to pay $100,000 for it?

That remains entirely unknown.

While The Lunduke Journal does not like to delve too deeply into the Political Woods (tm), it should be questioned why so much money — possibly millions of dollars donated by individuals who thought they were supporting a web browser — is being funneled into highly political organizations that seem to have no involvement with the World Wide Web, Web Browsers, or any related standards.

Weird Discretionary Spending

 

$30,000 to “MC Technical Inc.” in 2021. Who are they? Well, they don’t have a website, that’s for sure. The business registry listing is about the only thing of the company that seems to exist. The listed address is someone’s house.

How does a mostly-non-existent company, with no online presence at all (no website, social media, reviews, etc.), get paid $30,000 in “discretionary” money from Mozilla?

That’s just straight up weird.

 

And then there’s the $375,000 in discretionary spending given to “New Venture Fund.”

According to Influence Watch:

“The New Venture Fund (NVF) is a 501(c)(3) funding and fiscal sponsorship nonprofit that makes grants to left-of-center advocacy and organizing projects and provides incubation services for other left-of-center organizations. The fund focuses primarily on social and environmental change.”

Mozilla, the developer of Firefox, gave $375,000 to a “Fund” that specifically exists to provide money and services for political organizations of one particular “alignment”.

Why? In what way does this help Firefox? Or Firefox users?

So many questions…

The deeper we dig into Mozilla and their financials, the more questions come up.

  1. Why does Mozilla give so much money to political speakers that have no relationship to their core business?

  2. Why does Mozilla seem unconcerned with alienating a large portion of their user base (which is already shrinking)?

  3. Why do some of the recipients of Mozilla money appear to be nothing more than empty shells of companies — not even having a simple website?

  4. Why does Mozilla continue to take donations if it doesn’t need them?

  5. Where does Mozilla spend those donated dollars? Do they go to the strange discretionary spending or political organizations?

  6. With the 70%+ reliance on Google (a competitor) for revenue, why is Mozilla spending money on projects that have no goal of being profitable (and have no relation to their core business)?

  7. What happens when the Google funding goes away? Mozilla appears certain that it never will (based on their spending)…. why is that?

  8. Why is Mozilla decreasing software development funding when development of Firefox is the cash cow?

And that is, literally, the tip of the iceberg.

The Lunduke Journal has sent out numerous questions and requests for comment to organizations listed here (among many others) to find answers. Will any be forthcoming? It will be interesting to see.


August 5th, 2023 Update: To date, no request for clarification or additional details has been answered.

community logo
Join the Lunduke Community
To read more articles like this, sign up and join my community today
13
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
Open Source AI Definition: Not Open, Built by DEI, Funded by Big Tech

Run by an "Anti-Racist, Decolonizing" Activist, the new Open Source Definition is anything but Open.

The article:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5917220/open-source-ai-definition-not-open-built-by-dei-funded-by-big-tech

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:18:35
GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke"

The GNOME team has censored -- and deleted the account -- of the maintainer of Manjaro Linux GNOME Edition. Why? Because he linked to a Lunduke article.

GNOME bans Manjaro Core Team Member for uttering "Lunduke":
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5908516/gnome-bans-manjaro-core-team-member-for-uttering-lunduke

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:17:16
GNOME Ousts Elected Board Member in Secret, Tells Nobody for 2 Months

Secret meetings. No transparency. Total chaos at the GNOME Foundation as they remove Sonny Piers, one of their Board Members, without telling anyone. This all happens right as the GNOME Executive Director quits, GNOME announces dire financial circumstances, and a disastrous "5 year plan" focusing on DEI.

The article:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/5899324/gnome-ousts-elected-board-member-in-secret-and-tells-nobody-for-2-months

More from The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.com/

00:37:30
November 22, 2023
The futility of Ad-Blockers

Ads are filling the entirety of the Web -- websites, podcasts, YouTube videos, etc. -- at an increasing rate. Prices for those ad placements are plummeting. Consumers are desperate to use ad-blockers to make the web palatable. Google (and others) are desperate to break and block ad-blockers. All of which results in... more ads and lower pay for creators.

It's a fascinatingly annoying cycle. And there's only one viable way out of it.

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links? Check here:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

The futility of Ad-Blockers
November 21, 2023
openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"

Those in power with openSUSE make it clear they will not allow me anywhere near anything related to the openSUSE project. Ever. For any reason.

Well, that settles that, then! Guess I won't be contributing to openSUSE! 🤣

Looking for the Podcast RSS feed or other links?
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4619051/lunduke-journal-link-central-tm

Give the gift of The Lunduke Journal:
https://lunduke.locals.com/post/4898317/give-the-gift-of-the-lunduke-journal

openSUSE says "No Lunduke allowed!"
September 13, 2023
"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

This episode is free for all to enjoy and share.

Be sure to subscribe here at Lunduke.Locals.com to get all shows & articles (including interviews with other amazing nerds).

"Andreas Kling creator of Serenity OS & Ladybird Web Browser" - Lunduke’s Big Tech Show - September 13th, 2023 - Ep 044

Heads up:

The Lunduke Computer Operating System forum is getting some structure... and, for those of you looking to get involved, posts are starting to go up discussing specific areas available for contribution.

https://lcosforum.lunduke.com/

I installed Llama 3.1 8B locally on my $600 windows 11 machine (Ryzen 7 mobile processor, 8 cores, 64gig ram, integrated gpu). Not exactly a high performance genai machine.

Initial impression? Pretty nice. Quick enough - but not nearly as quick as ChatGPT.

I told it about Lunduke and OSNews and asked for a Haiku:

Truth stands strong against hate
Lunduke's voice echoes love loud
Light shines in the dark

With some more prompting we arrived at:

Bytes of love prevail
Osnews' hate crashes to zero
Lunduke's code saves

Not bad. I gave it one of my blog posts to review, and it did a solid job. Then we discussed diabetes and such. Even this 8B version, is nice.

The 70B version will probably run on my machine.

Looking forward to someone taking off the censorship. A model this good, uncensored, running locally? Game changer.

Yes, yes, yes: cp, copy, midnight commander, whatever. But I'm curious; if you're using a GUI file manager...

post photo preview
Editor of OSNews calls for the murder of a Conservative, Jewish Tech Journalist
Leftist Extremist OSNews says Lunduke is "Nazi" who must "die".

The Editor of OSNews.com has declared that I, Lunduke, am a member of the Nazi party -- and encourages others to murder me.

I repeat: A Tech Journalist has stated -- as a matter of fact -- that a proud Jewish man is a Nazi that must be killed.

Absolutely insane.

On Friday, July 26th, the Editor of OSNews.com (Thom Holwerda), posted the following to his Mastodon account:

"Hey linuxrocks.online, you have a nazi infestation. Considering your instance seems to use only approved registrations, this surely raises about a million red flags."

 

Source: Mastodon

 

What was the "Nazi infestation" he speaks of?  He includes a screenshot of The Lunduke Journal account to make it clear who he was refering to.

While this is already absolutely insane (no sane person would call a proud Jewish man a member of the Nazi party)... it gets far, far worse.

A few hours later, the OSNews.com Editor followed up with the following statement:

"Since the instance linuxrocks.online is openly, knowingly, and willingly hosting nazis, I'm going to block the whole instance. If you're a follower on said nazi instance, I suggest you reconsider your choice of instance.

 

No quarter for nazis. The only good nazi is a dead nazi."

 

Source: Mastodon

 

"No quarter for nazis. The only good nazi is a dead nazi."

Am I a Nazi?  Obviously not.  But, that Tech Journalist says that I am a Nazi.  And I must be killed.

Which means, according to the Editor of OSNews, "The only good [Lunduke] is a dead [Lunduke]."

Is it libel?  Without question.  Is this a clear threat of violence?  Absolutely.

He also appears to be stating that anyone who simply exists on the same server as me is, by proximity, also a Nazi.  And they must also be murdered.

Few Will Condemn This

I wish I could say this was a completely isolated incident.

The sad fact is, a number of Tech Journalists share the extreme, Leftist, disturbed, violent views of the Editor of OSNews.  They believe that many groups (including both Conservatives and Jews) are evil "Nazis" who must be murdered.

And, while many other Tech Journalists do not agree with those warped, twisted ideas... few, if any, will speak out against those calls for violence and death.

All Hope Is Not Lost

In those vile messages quoted above, the Editor of OSNews was clearly attempting to bully the administrator of a specific server -- whose only crime was allowing me to exist.

How did that server's administrator respond?  In an incredibly reasonable way:

"We do not appreciate name-calling here. Would you like to present your evidence that a user needs to be removed rather than going straight to name-calling."

 

Source: Mastodon

 

No name-calling.  Present evidence if you have a concern.

Reasonable.  Calm.  Practical.

Seeing that sort of response gave me just a little extra hope for the future of the Open Source and general computer industries.  If we can get more brave, reasonable, thoughtful people -- like that server administrator -- speaking against the hate and violence of people like the Editor of OSNews... we might just stand a chance.

(Of course, no response given -- by the OSNews Editor -- to this reasonable request.)

A Related Thought From Lunduke

Let's pause, and take a step back.  I'd like to talk, for just a moment, about politically charged discussions (like this one) within the broader Tech World... and on The Lunduke Journal specifically.

When I first started The Lunduke Journal, I focused entirely on the technical aspects of computing.  "Stay clear of politics, Lunduke," I told myself.  "Stick to the happy tech stuff!"

And, by and large, I managed to stay true to that for many years (with no more than a passing, momentary blip into politically charged topics once in a blue moon).

But, here we stand.

At a time when people are being banned from Open Source projects solely because of their political leanings (often leading to the complete destruction of those projects).  When entire Open Source organizations and concepts are being re-shaped -- into something not-at-all "Open" -- by political activists.  When Big Tech corporations are regularly discriminating against people based on the color of their skin or their sex.

And when, like we saw today, a Tech Journalist declares that Conservative Jewish Nerds (and the people who exist near them) are "Nazis" who need to be murdered.

Staying quiet on these issues is simply not an option.

Not for The Lunduke Journal.  And not for any other Tech Journalist worth a damn.

It is well past time to speak out against this insanity.  If you are a Tech Journalist (in whatever form... articles, podcasts, videos), shine a light on these stories.  Show people the damage that is being done to the world of computing by these political extremists.

The Lunduke Journal can't do this all alone.  But if I have to do it on my own... I will.

Because I love computing.  I love the history of it, the technical aspects, the future... all of it.  And computing is worth saving.

So, I will keep covering all of it.  Even if these extremists keep threatening to kill me.

Read full Article
post photo preview
Funny Programming Pictures Part XLIX
Mogwai & Michael J Fox Edition

Not all of these pictures are about programming and computers.  Some are about Mogwai and Michael J Fox.   Just felt right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Read full Article
post photo preview
Open Source AI Definition: Not Open, Built by DEI, Funded by Big Tech
Run by an "Anti-Racist, Decolonizing" Activist, the new Open Source Definition is anything but Open

The Open Source Initiative is preparing to finalize what they call "The Open Source Aritificial Intelligence Definition" -- a set of rules which A.I. systems must adhere to in order to be considered, officially, "Open Source".

And everything about it is truly peculiar.

From the fact that it considers "No Data" to be "Open Data" (yeah, try to wrap your brain around that little nugget) to the corporate sponsorship (from corporations in the "Closed Source A.I." business)... to the "anti-racist, decolonizing" consultant they hired to put the whole thing together.

Yeah.  "Decolonizing".  The whole thing is just plain weird.

A Little Background

The Open Source Initiative's cliam to fame is that they are the steward of what is known as the "Open Source Definition" (aka "the OSD").  A set of rules which any software license must adhere to in order to be considred, officially, "Open Source".

The "OSD" began life back in 1997 as the "Debian Free Software Guidelines", written by Bruce Perens.  Later, with the help of Eric Raymond, that document morphed into the "Open Source Definition"... at which point the two men created the "Open Source Initiative" to act as a certification body for the OSD.

Fun Historical Tidbit: The Open Source Initiative likes to tell a long-debunked story about the creation of the term "Open Source" which they know is historically incorrect.  That little tidbit isn't critical to what we're talking about today... but it's just plain weird, right?

Flash forward to today, and both of the founders -- Perens and Raymond -- have been forced out or banned from the Open Source Initiative entirely.  Now the organization, free from the influence of the founders, is looking to expand into the newly exciting field of "Artificial Intelligence".

Thus: The creation of "The Open Source A.I. Definition"... or the OSAID.

The Anti-Racist Leadership

To create this new "OSAID", the Open Source Initiative hired Mer Joyce from the consulting agency known as "Do Big Good".

 

Mer Joyce: Process Facilitator for the Open Source AI Definition

 

Why, specifically, was Mer Joyce hired to lead the effort to create a brand new "Open Source" definition, specifically focused on Artificial Intelligence?

  • Was it her extensive background in Open Source?
  • Or her expertise in A.I. related topics?
  • Perhaps it was simply her many years of work in software, in general?

Nope.  It was none of those things.  Because, in fact, Mer Joyce appears to have approximately zero experience in any of those areas.

In fact, the stated reason that Mer Joyce was chosen to create this Open Source definition is, and I quote:

 

"[Mer Joyce] has worked for over a decade at the intersection of research, policy, innovation and social change."

 

Her work experience appears to be mostly focused on Leftist political activism and working on Democrat political campaigns.

As for the consulting agancy, Do Big Good, their focus appears to be equally... non-technical.  With a focus on "creating an equitable and sustainable world" and "inclusion".

 

The "Values" of "Do Big Good".

 

When "Do Big Good" talks about what skils and expertise they bring to a project, they mention things such as:

  • Center marginalized and excluded voices.
  • Embody anti-racist, feminist, and decolonizing values.
  • Practice Cultural humility.

 

How "Do Big Good" works.

 

Note: Yes.  They wrote "decolonalizing".  Which is not a real word.  We're going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant "decolonizing".  Spelling errors happen.

Now, how does "Embodying decolonizing values" help to draft a definition of Open Source Artificial Intelligence licensing?

No clue.  But, apparently, "decolonizing" and being "anti-racist" is important to the Open Source Definition and software licensing.

You'll note that the only software-related skill this "Do Big Good" company appears to have is that they can "work virtually or in-person".  In other words: They know how to use Zoom.

In fact, this consulting firm only gives three examples of client projects they've worked on.  And the other two are non-technical policy documents for the government of Washington State.

 

The other work of "Do Big Good".

 

Why this agency, and this individual, was hired to lead the work on the OSAID is beyond baffling.  Just the same, this appears to be part of a larger pattern within Open Source and Big Tech: Hiring non-technical, political activist types to lead highly technical projects.  It doesn't usually go well.

The Diverse Working Groups

Considering that the leadership hired to oversee the OSAID's creation is extremely non-technical --  and almost 100% focused on "anti-racist" and "decolonizing" activism -- it's no surprise that one of the first steps taken was to create "working groups" based entirely on skin color and gender identity.

 

"The next step was the formation of four working groups to initially analyze four different AI systems and their components. To achieve better representation, special attention was given to diversity, equity and inclusion. Over 50% of the working group participants are people of color, 30% are black, 75% were born outside the US, and 25% are women, trans or nonbinary."

 

What does having "25% of the people being Trans or nonbinary" have to do with creating a rule-set for software licensing?

Your guess is as good as mine.

But, from the very start of the OSAID's drafting, the focus was not on "creating the best Open Source AI Definition possible"... it was on, and I quote, "diversity, equity and inclusion".

The best and brightest?  Not important.  Meritocracy?  Thrown out the window.

Implement highly racist "skin color quotas" in the name of "DEI"?  You bet!  Lots of that!

"No Data" = "Open Data"

With that in mind, perhaps it is no surprise that the OSAID is turning out... rather bizarre.

Case in point: The OSAID declares that the complete absence of the data used to train an A.I. system... does, in fact, qualify as "Open".  No data... is considered... open data.

If that sounds a bit weird to you, you're not alone.

Let's back up for a moment to give a higher level understanding of the components of an A.I. system:

  1. The Source Code
  2. The Training Data
  3. The Model Parameters

If you have access to all three of those items, you can re-create an A.I. system.

Now, we already have the OSD (the Open Source Definition) which covers the source code part.  Which means the whole purpose of having the OSAID (the Open Source AI Definition) is to cover the other two components: The Training Data and the Model Parameters.

Without an exact copy of the Training Data used in an A.I. system, it becomes impossible to re-create that A.I. system.  It's simply how the current generation of A.I. works.

However, the OSAID does not require that the Training Data be made available at all.  The definition simply requires that:

 

"Sufficiently detailed information about the data used to train the system, so that a skilled person can recreate a substantially equivalent system using the same or similar data."

 

At first that sounds pretty reasonable... until you really think about what it means.

This means that an A.I. system would be considered "Open Source A.I." even if it provided zero data used to train it -- it simply must be possible for someone to use the closed, proprietary data... if they should happen to obtain it.

That's like saying "My software is open source.  But I'm not going to let you have the source code.  But, if you did get the source code -- like through espionage or something -- you'd be able to use it.  Which means it's open source.  But you can't distribute or modify that source.  Because it's mine."

Now, an argument could be made that the source code for an AI system could be open even if the data is all closed... and, therefor, it would be "Open Source" under the old OSD.  Which is absolutely true.  But, in that case, why have an "OSAID" at all?  Why not simply keep the existing OSD and focus on that?

Well... I think we have a simple answer to why this OSAID is so utterly strange...

The Corporate Sponsors

The Open Source Initiative is not a huge foundation, especially when compared to some.  But it's revenue is not insignificant.  And it's growing.

In 2023, the Open Source Initiative brought in a revenue of $786,000 -- up roughly $200,000 from the year prior.

 

Source: Open Source Initaitive 2023 Annual Report

 

And who sponsors the Open Source Initiative?

Google.  Amazon.  Meta.  Microsoft (and GitHub).  Red Hat.  And many other corporations. 

 

A Sampling of the Open Source Initiative Sponsors.

 

 

Many of these companies have some noteworthy things in common:

  • They are in the A.I. business in some way.
  • They make use of "Open Source" in their A.I. products.
  • They use "Open Source" as a promotional and public relations tool.
  • They, in one way or another, work with a closed, proprietary set of A.I. training data.
  • They have significant "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" efforts.

When you add that all together, this "Open Source AI Definition" begins to make a lot more sense.

It is, in short:

An effort to create a "Certification" which will declare all of their A.I. systems (no matter how closed their data is) as "Open Source"... while simultaneously being run by a DEI activist organization with a focus on racial and gender identity quotas.

It checks a whole lot of check boxes.  All at once.

What Impact Will This Have?

While many may argue that this "OSAID" is simply irrelevant -- and can be ignored by the broader "Free and Open Source Software" industry -- that misses a key impact that is worth noting.

That being: The continued corruption of both the ideas and the organizations of Open Source.

Not only has the Open Source Initiative banned their founding members (and re-written their own history)... they are now seeking to create a new "Open Source Definition" which will allow for systems consisting primarily of closed, proprietary data to be considered "Open Source".  Thus making their Big Tech financiers happy.

The meaning of the term "Open Source" is being actively modified to mean "A little open, and a lot closed".  And many of the same corproations which are funding this effort are also funding things like... The Linux Foundation.

Which means this corruption and dilution of the concept of "Open Source" is likely to spread far beyond the reaches of one, small (but growing) licensing certification foundation.

Also, apparently, decolonizing values... or something.

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals