[License-review] ModelGo Attribution-OpenSource License, Version 2.0

[Josh Berkus]

Moming,

Commentary on the MG A-OS License 2.0.  This is non-attorney commentary, 
as I am not a lawyer; I am examining strictly whether the license 
appears to be consistent with the OSD from a layman's (software 
developer's) perspective, and whether it has other problems.

I will also add that while I am an AI/ML user I am not an AI/ML system 
developer, and we probably need some feedback from someone with that 
expertise.  I call that out below.

My comments follow.  These are comments, some of them aimed at other 
reviewers in this group.  Where I see things that need correction I'll 
be clear.

In summary, this feels like a good start on a copyleft model license, 
and I look forward to getting it into good enough shape to approve.

Definitions:

1. Before these licenses are final, you should have an editor who is a 
native English speaker review them as there are many typos and 
grammatical issues.

2. I'd like someone who works in-depth on building AI systems to comment 
on the following clauses to see if they are likely to be sufficiently 
clear and effective:
“Complementary Materials”
"Derivative Materials"

3. FYI: This license does rely on "Hosted service/API" licensing, as per 
the AGPL.

4. FYI: This license specifically excludes training data.

Sections:

2.1.a: "a
non-exclusive, non-transferable, sublicensable, irrevocable, 
royalty-free, worldwide right and license"  What does it mean for a 
license to be "non-transferable and sublicensable"?

2.3.a.i: this is another "all applicable laws" section.  Again, these 
are wholly unnecessary, and are debatably a minor OSD violation.

2.4.b.:  "You may Distribute the Output to third parties provided that 
You indicate as part of the Distribution that any Output generated 
through the use of the Licensed Materials and/or Derivative Materials 
may contain AI-generated content."
... this is a pretty novel notice requirement, with no parallel in 
accepted non-AI licenses; can you explain the motivation behind it and 
intended effect?

2.5.b.:  It feels like this clause needs to be modified to make it clear 
that you can refer to the Licensor's trademark in order to identify the 
software.

5.2.: You may want to have the license auto-terminate instead of saying 
that the licensor MAY terminate.

6. This third-party materials clause is new to me, and seems apt for 
model licensing.

7.1. The wording here is problematic when combined with 2.3.a.i.  It 
effectively says that the software must be used under the laws of 
Singapore regardless of where any author of derivative works and their 
users reside.  This would be highly problematic, and is probably a 
violation of OSD5 due to effectively preventing large sections of the 
world from using it.

-- 
Josh Berkus