<div dir="auto"><div>This is why I started deprecating Open Hardware licenses. Schematics are not currently copyrightable, and what if they were? Perhaps Horowitz and Hill's "Art of Electronics" textbook would be collecting royalties from every electronic product worldwide. </div><div><br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Mar 17, 2026, 11:25 Henrik Ingo <<a href="mailto:henrik.ingo@gmail.com">henrik.ingo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>Hi all, it's been a few years since I was active here, have been heads down in startup mode.</div><div><br></div><div>I have a policy opinion, which is independent of this particular license submission,but very relevant:</div><div><br></div><div>OSI should not approve any licenses that are specifically targeting code produced by an AI, and should be careful in adding clauses to existing OSS licenses as well. (The latter may turn out to be necessary, but if it becomes necessary, OSI should first go through clear policy guidelines on wording that may and may not be used in such clauses.)</div><div><br></div><div>As Nik also correctly observes, code generated by an AI is in general considered to not be copyrighted at all. (This is a) because legislators were of the opinion a machine or software program cannot, by definition, produce a creative work , and b) even if they could, they are not human so they cannot own property, material or immaterial. For the same reason animals cannot own copyright either.)</div><div><br></div><div>Projecting into a very near future, most code will be generated by AI, and therefore most code will not be copyrighted. If we go back to our roots of our movement, with Stallman and a printer driver and so on... this is the dream come true! We should embrace and defend this future, and I for one am thankful it is happening in my lifetime.</div><div><br></div><div>Approving and using a license such as the one proposed in this thread would be a terrible own goal to make at this point. OSS licenses mostly deal with copyright, so since there is no copyright, there is no need for a license. In particular, using words like "permission is hereby granted" is hugely misleading: The user of the software does not need to ask for permission, and in any case the person putting the license into the git repository is not in a position to grant such permission. However, doing so could very well create precedent, or a habit, that some kind of license is still needed, and that could be misused by a proprietary software company to claim that their restrictive license must also be followed.</div><div><br></div><div>Finally, a good reason for the OSI not to approve such licenses - at least until further discussion - is that it is out of scope. OSI does not have a mandate to review or approve such licenses. Since AI generated code is not copyrighted, it isn't really open source nor closed source. (It might be the latter, but certtainly isn't open source.) Since it isn't open source, it is not within OSIs mandate.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I agree that it might become necessary to make some clarifying statement about the above situation. As such, OSI may want to recommend some short informational statement explaining that some body of code was fully or mostly generated by AI, and therefore is not copyrighted, and therefore the reader is free to copy, use, etc... the program(s). And if there is such a statement, it could also come with a disclaimer that further emphasises the point by saying that since the software was not produced and is not copyrighted by a human, there is also no person that could be held liable for any kind of malfunction or damage. (Except of course if a distributor of the software specifically wants to offer such warranty, perhaps against a fee.)</div><div><br></div><div>henrik</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 2:32\u202fPM Nik <<a href="mailto:nik.sharky@gmail.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">nik.sharky@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Apologize, my mistake. I'm new to mailing lists and sent this to both addresses.<br>This proposal is currently up for discussion, and if the community agrees, the final text can be submitted for review and registration after discussion, as I understand it.<div><br></div><div>Nik</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">\u043f\u0442, 13 \u043c\u0430\u0440. 2026\u202f\u0433. \u0432 18:32, Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela.chestek@opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">pamela.chestek@opensource.org</a>>:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
McCoy, I also have an email where it was submitted to license-review
on 3/12/26 at 5:30 pm PT?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div>On 3/13/2026 9:10 AM, McCoy Smith
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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>On 3/12/2026 4:20 AM, Nik wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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" rel="noreferrer">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></fieldset>
<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 <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<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 <a href="http://opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
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 <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>