[License-review] Notice requirement for model output: OSD-compliant or not? (ModelGo)

[Pamela Chestek]

On 3/2/2025 12:38 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> All,
>
> I wanted to have a quick discussion here about a specific kind of 
> requirement in the ModelGo-OS license:
>
>
> >> 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.
>
> If you take out the AI aspects of this, this feels like an 
> "advertising requirement", except that conventionally advertising 
> requirements are about advertising the upstream contributors, as 
> opposed to having a caution about usage.  So it's maybe not the same.
>
> As Moming points out, this is likely to be a popular type of 
> requirement since it's common practice already.  So I think we should 
> figure out if it's problematic for the OSD or not.
>
I do not believe that this kind of provision should be accepted for 
these reasons:

1. It's an overstep. We are imposing value judgment on how AI-created 
content should be treated. It may be that there is important social 
value in not saying that output is AI generated. This is the purview of 
legislation, an area that we have been careful to avoid overlapping with.

2. I believe the nature of open source licenses is that they impose 
requirements on the licensee only to the extent they assure that the 
licensor receives the benefit that is their motive for putting software 
under an open source license and to protect the licensor from harm when 
they have generously made a gift. However, this term is for the benefit 
of the public and I don't see what value the licensor gets from it. If 
that's true, I think it is just another barrier that a licensee has to 
take into account, thus introducing friction when we are trying to make 
licensing as frictionless as possible.

Pam (in my personal capacity)

Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal
www.chesteklegal.com