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

[Josh Berkus]

Sending a copy of Moming's replies to License-Review, since they answers 
a bunch of questions.  See below.

On 2/26/25 18:26, Moming Duan wrote:
> Hi Berkus,
> 
> Thank you for summarizing the issues.
> 
>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
> 
> I noticed these issues during a previous review of the MG0 licenses and 
> will amend them to improve OSD compliance.
> 
> 
>> 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?
> 
> I intend for model users to add a proper notice when distributing 
> generated content. This is not a restriction on using the content for 
> specific purposes but rather a requirement to attribute the generated 
> content as AI-assisted, helping to reduce misinformation and misleading 
> claims.
> Currently, many AI systems implement similar mechanisms. For example, 
> DeepSeek displays a pop-up when providing legal advice (see below), 
> which is one way to comply with this clause.
> Notably, Clause 2.4(b) does not require adding a watermark to generated 
> content, as this could negatively impact content quality.
> 
> PastedGraphic-2.png
> 
> 
>> 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.
> 
>     (b)Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, You shall
>     not refer to the Licensor or
>     use the Licensor’s trademarks, trade names, and service marks, for
>     any publicity,
>     advertising or marketing purposes, without the Licensor’s prior
>     written consent.
> 
> 
>  From my understanding, the Licensee can still refer to the trademark 
> for the purpose of identifying the software, as it is not publicity, 
> advertising, marketing purposes.
> 
> 
>> 5.2.: You may want to have the license auto-terminate instead of 
>> saying that the licensor MAY terminate.
> 
> I agree with making this clause stricter since it is a copyleft license. 
> I think "SHALL terminate” is more suitable.
> 
>> 6. This third-party materials clause is new to me, and seems apt for 
>> model licensing.
> 
>     6.1You acknowledge and agree that the Licensed Materials may use or
>     embody rights (including
>     Intellectual Property Rights) of third parties (“Third-Party
>     Materials”), including Open-Source
>     Software and other free-content works.
> 
> 
> I want to clarify that third-party materials in an AI model are not 
> limited to code and data. A model can be embedded in another model, for 
> example, through Mix-of-Experts (MoE) or as a feature extractor. 
> Therefore, I believe this clause should be extended to cover ML models 
> in the next amendment.
> Add, "Open-Source" should be spelled as "Open Source," as pointed out by 
> Carlo. Awkward...
> 
> 
> Best,
> Moming
> 
> 


-- 
Josh Berkus