[License-discuss] Pre-Advice for ModelGo Licenses Review

["D 莫名 (dewitt)"]

Hi Stefano,


Thanks for your clarification! I think it's better to avoid such copyleft-style provisions that may potentially harm legal compliance in the overall software ecosystem. On the other hand, data is often already covered by free-content licenses (e.g., CC), which do not restrict model training and may not need an OSI-approved license. (I’m not a lawyer, this is just based on my research experience in license compliance)
Thanks again for your opinion! I will prepare the materials and move forward with the OSI license review process soon.


Best,
Moming

> On 11 Feb 2025, at 6:41 PM, Stefano Maffulli <stefano at opensource.org> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 11:22 AM "D 莫名 (dewitt)" <duanmoming at gmail.com <mailto:duanmoming at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> BTW, from my understanding, the current OSAID applies to AI systems, correct?
> 
> yes, the OSAID refers to and includes a definition of "AI system". It was required because we needed to anchor the discussion to something concrete. Think of the Open Source Definition #2 Source Code stating "The program must include source code". In the context of software we knew what "the program" was, therefore there was no need to dive any deeper into that rat's nest.
> 
> For AI, we (collectively) needed to understand what the word "program" represents before we could understand what the words "source code" meant. The equivalent of "Program" is "AI system" as defined by the OECD. As the OSAID FAQ say https://opensource.org/ai/faq#what-is-an-ai-system:
> 
>             an AI system is “the thing” that processes input to produce output, whether that’s a prediction, recommendation, or another result.
>  
>> Is it a requirement for open-source model licenses to comply with it? For example, should an open-source model license include terms ensuring that its code and data are also governed by an OSI-approved license?
> 
> I have opinions but they're personal opinions so I won't state them here. I'd be happy to hear what others think though.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> 
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250211/dd2520cf/attachment.htm>