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

[Moming Duan]

Hi Pamela,


> 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.

I acknowledge that requiring AI-generated content to be declared may introduce friction, but the absence of such a provision can also harm open source. Nowadays, it is common to transfer knowledge by improving a model based on content generated by other models. If we do not address this behavior, the sustainability of open source cannot be guaranteed. Even though the ModelGo License considers knowledge transfer as creating a derivative work, people can still circumvent this by publishing generated content as a dataset without disclosing which model was used (e.g., a model with an open source requirement).  

I am also considering whether we could narrow this clause so that it only applies when distributing a collection of outputs, requiring disclosure of the info of original model and its license. Any suggestions on this? Thanks.


Best,
Moming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250303/186013c6/attachment.htm>