We hold that software reasoning on a person's behalf must be open to inspection by that person. These are the principles we build against — written into the charter, not the marketing.
Software that reasons on a person's behalf must be open to inspection by that person. Closed reasoning about open lives is not acceptable. We build so the logic can be read, audited, and challenged.
Prejudice encoded into a model is a bug with consequences. We treat fairness as an engineering requirement — measured, tested, and documented — not a paragraph in a press release.
People should know how their data trains the systems that judge them. We support machine-readable, durable consent that follows a dataset wherever it goes.
Interoperability is an ethical position. Open standards keep intelligent systems answerable to the public rather than to a single vendor's roadmap.
Donors choose which projects to support; they do not get to dictate the outcome. Funding keeps the lights on. It does not set the agenda.
Not a slogan — a constraint. If a tool only serves those who can pay for it, it has not met the bar we set for the commons.
We do not get to call a system fair because it was convenient to build that way. Fairness is a requirement we test for, document, and defend in public.
— THE CLEVERLIBRE CHARTER, PREAMBLE
CleverThis founded and funds the foundation. Donors may choose which projects to support — but no funder, founder included, dictates how a project is run or what it concludes. Governance is the community's. That separation is the whole point.
Roadmaps are public. Decisions are logged. Every incubated project is governed by its maintainers under an OSI-approved license. If you cannot read how a choice was made, we consider that a bug in our process.