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

[Josh Berkus]

On 3/3/25 17:48, Moming Duan wrote:
> 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).

So, a couple things:

1. The current language does NOT require attribution (or licensing for 
that matter); it just requires a notice that the output was produced 
using some kind of AI.

2. Also, by my reading, the notice requirement isn't inheritable.  So if 
I were to take the output from a ModelGo model, and use it to train a 
new model called "JoshAI", then there is no requirement that JoshAI have 
any particular notices.

3. It's not clear that model output has any copyrightability, so even if 
you wrote a provision which contained attribution and was inheritable, 
it's not clear that it could be legally enforced.  Lawyers?

-- 
Josh Berkus