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

[Moming Duan]

Hi Richard,


> On 4 Mar 2025, at 5:40 AM, Richard Fontana <rfontana at redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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.


An AI model is not like an editor. As I discussed previously, the intention of this clause is not to enforce legal compliance but to ensure that open source remains substantial. It is a widely practiced approach in the ML community to extract knowledge from one model to improve another. In some cases, like DeepSeek, the new model can even outperform the original one.

Using your editor analogy, an AI model is more like an editor that is likely to output part of its source code. My intention is to require downstream users to provide attribution when they create a dataset using this content, which may then be used by others for training their models (e.g., Llama, ChatGPT).


Best,
Moming