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

[Richard Fontana]

I agree with this too (bearing in mind it may not be Josh's view).
I am reminded of the Kyle Mitchell license that was submitted several
years ago. I may be misremembering but I think it attempted to extend
copyleft to the output of a program. While I think this was deemed to
be withdrawn by the submitter before the OSI could reach a decision, I
recall that the general sentiment on this list was against approval.

This would be akin to putting an editor under a license that required
any file created with the editor to have an attribution notice. Or, if
there is some distinction, I'm not immediately seeing it.

Richard



On Mon, Mar 3, 2025 at 1:15 PM Carlo Piana <carlo at piana.eu> wrote:
>
> Josh,
>
> I tend to agree. The output of a program (and of an AI system/model alike) should not be  subject matter controlled by the maker of them. This would control conditions of use, not of downstream licensing (Freedom #0 in FSF's Four freedoms parlance).
>
> I gather Simon has the same view.
>
>
> If the output is "derivative" of anything, I believe it is of the training material, but then again this is more an unwanted accident than the rule, according to my to-date understanding of the interaction between those two bits.
>
> It may sound akin to the requirement of the AI Act to watermark or otherwise make conspicuous that a content has been generated by AI, but I don't see a rationale in allowing this. We don't conflate policy requirements (as the one Dirk mentions, incidentally) and licensing conditions, the two must stay separate and depend on a lot of things that don't belong in, and cannot be figured out at, licensing.
>
>
> This has nothing to do with attribution, it is more akin, if anything to the advertisement clause, you are right, but misplaced, since it refers to the output and the output should be controlled by the user. The fact that is becoming commonplace is no excuse. Proprietary license was (is) commonplace when OSD was drafted too.
>
> K
>
>
>
>
> ----- Messaggio originale -----
> > Da: "Josh Berkus" <josh at berkus.org>
> > A: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
> > Inviato: Domenica, 2 marzo 2025 21:38:42
> > Oggetto: [License-review] Notice requirement for model output: OSD-compliant or not? (ModelGo)
>
> > 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.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Berkus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily
> > those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source
> > Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
> >
> > License-review mailing list
> > License-review at lists.opensource.org
> > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>