<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Nik:</p>
<p>Are you requesting approval of this license by OSI, or just
discussion of the license? You've submitted to the license-discuss
list, which is where licenses are discussed, but does not result
in the license being put through the approval process. Your
statement that you are "submitting" the license "for
consideration" is ambiguous.</p>
<p>If you are seeking approval, you need to use the correct mailing
list and provide all the data required for a submission, which has
not been done in your e-mail below.</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/12/2026 4:20 AM, Nik wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CALoGuP2xLo_YCyvotEbbi9GDReMWZz-QPTfvhbDRx-L0ffZq-A@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Dear OSI License Review Committee,<br>
<br>
I am submitting the **AI-MIT License, Version 1.0** for
consideration by the Open Source Initiative.<br>
<br>
## Summary<br>
<br>
The AI-MIT License is a permissive open-source license designed
to address a genuine gap: existing licenses were written for
human authors and handle AI-generated code poorly, creating
false implications about authorship and copyright status.<br>
<br>
The license is deliberately minimal \u2014 it preserves the structure
and permissiveness of the MIT License while adding three
targeted changes for the AI context.<br>
<br>
## The problem it solves<br>
<br>
1. **False authorship implication.** When `Copyright (c) [year]
[author]` is applied to fully AI-generated code, it implies
human authorship and copyright that may not legally exist in
most jurisdictions.<br>
<br>
2. **No standard for disclosure.** There is no widely adopted
mechanism for disclosing whether code is AI-generated,
AI-assisted, or human-authored. This matters for supply-chain
security, regulatory compliance (EU AI Act), and intellectual
honesty in open source.<br>
<br>
3. **Undefined copyright status.** Fully autonomous AI-generated
code (no human creative input) is in a legal grey zone in most
jurisdictions. A license that claims copyright over it is at
best misleading, at worst invalid.<br>
<br>
## What the license does differently from MIT<br>
<br>
The license adds one structural element (the Authorship
Declaration) and three conditions/clauses:<br>
<br>
**Authorship Declaration** \u2014 a required checkbox at the top of
the LICENSE file with three modes:<br>
- *Fully AI-generated*: no copyright claimed; code dedicated to
public domain<br>
- *AI-assisted*: human-directed, AI-generated; standard
copyright applies<br>
- *Human-authored*: AI used as a tool only; identical to MIT
posture<br>
<br>
**Condition 2 \u2014 Transparency**: redistribution or use as AI
training data must not misrepresent AI origin as human
authorship.<br>
<br>
**Condition 3 \u2014 No Copyright Claim**: for fully autonomous code,
explicit public domain dedication (with a perpetual irrevocable
fallback for jurisdictions where public domain dedication is
impossible).<br>
<br>
**Extended disclaimer**: adds three AI-specific disclaimers
about training data provenance, regulatory compliance, and
jurisdictional limitations of the authorship declaration.<br>
<br>
## OSD compliance analysis<br>
<br>
1. **Free Redistribution** \u2713 \u2014 no restriction on sale or
distribution<br>
2. **Source Code** \u2713 \u2014 no source restriction<br>
3. **Derived Works** \u2713 \u2014 modification and redistribution
permitted<br>
4. **Integrity of the Author's Source Code** \u2713 \u2014 no patch-file
requirement; attribution preserved<br>
5. **No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups** \u2713<br>
6. **No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor** \u2713<br>
7. **Distribution of License** \u2713 \u2014 same rights apply to all
recipients<br>
8. **License Must Not Be Specific to a Product** \u2713<br>
9. **License Must Not Restrict Other Software** \u2713<br>
10. **License Must Be Technology-Neutral** \u2713<br>
<br>
The Transparency condition (Condition 2) requires disclosure of
AI origin but does not restrict use in any field \u2014 it is an
attribution/honesty requirement, not a field-of-endeavor
restriction.<br>
<br>
## SPDX identifier
<div><br>
We are concurrently requesting the SPDX identifier
`AI-MIT-1.0` through the SPDX GitHub repository.<br>
<br>
## Repository</div>
<div><br>
The full license text, README, translations, and supporting
materials are available at: <br>
<a href="https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit-license"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit-license</a><br>
<br>
## A note on meta-context</div>
<div><br>
This license was initially drafted with AI assistance (Claude,
Anthropic) at the direction of a human. We believe this is
appropriate and have disclosed it in the repository. The
license is itself an example of the category of work it
governs.<br>
<br>
We welcome feedback from the committee and the community at
large.<br>
<br>
Respectfully, <font color="#888888"><font color="#888888"><br>
Nik </font></font></div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>