[License-review] [SUBMISSION] AI-MIT License 1.0 — permissive license for AI-generated code

Mon Mar 16 00:46:42 UTC 2026

On Sun, Mar 15, 2026 at 9:11 AM PTFS <pfts.offical at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> For some reason, it isnt showing the yellow highlight it was,

You shouldn't assume that any colors you intended in your original
message will survive transmission, given mailing list settings and
settings for individual email clients that may strip out HTML and so
forth. Maybe try using some typographical convention like brackets or
asterisks to enclose what you had intended to show by highlighting.

I'm not sure the possibility that any part of this license is
AI-generated matters though.

Richard

>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2026 at 4:16 PM PTFS <pfts.offical at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I just want to note that the author may have used ChatGPT, and ZeroGPT indicates the text is approximately 59.7% AI-generated. That said, using AI doesn’t break any OSI rules. However, it’s worth mentioning because this license could still be challenged under the Open Source Definition (OSD). I’m highlighting this only for context, the AI patterns (shown in yellow in the full text) don’t make it invalid, but they could make reviewers scrutinize it more closely, which may increase the chance of AI-MIT getting rejected, The Full Text i will show it right now : Dear OSI License Review Committee,
>> I am submitting the **AI-MIT License, Version 1.0** for consideration by the Open Source Initiative. ## Summary The AI-MIT License is a permissive open-source license designed to address a genuine gap: existing licenses were written for human authors and handle AI-generated code poorly, creating false implications about authorship and copyright status. The license is deliberately minimal — it preserves the structure and permissiveness of the MIT License while adding three targeted changes for the AI context. ## The problem it solves 1. **False authorship implication.** When `Copyright (c) [year] [author]` is applied to fully AI-generated code, it implies human authorship and copyright that may not legally exist in most jurisdictions. 2. **No standard for disclosure.** There is no widely adopted mechanism for disclosing whether code is AI-generated, AI-assisted, or human-authored. This matters for supply-chain security, regulatory compliance (EU AI Act), and intellectual honesty in open source. 3. **Undefined copyright status.** Fully autonomous AI-generated code (no human creative input) is in a legal grey zone in most jurisdictions. A license that claims copyright over it is at best misleading, at worst invalid. ## What the license does differently from MIT The license adds one structural element (the Authorship Declaration) and three conditions/clauses: **Authorship Declaration** — a required checkbox at the top of the LICENSE file with three modes: - *Fully AI-generated*: no copyright claimed; code dedicated to public domain - *AI-assisted*: human-directed, AI-generated; standard copyright applies - *Human-authored*: AI used as a tool only; identical to MIT posture **Condition 2 — Transparency**: redistribution or use as AI training data must not misrepresent AI origin as human authorship. **Condition 3 — No Copyright Claim**: for fully autonomous code, explicit public domain dedication (with a perpetual irrevocable fallback for jurisdictions where public domain dedication is impossible). **Extended disclaimer**: adds three AI-specific disclaimers about training data provenance, regulatory compliance, and jurisdictional limitations of the authorship declaration. ## OSD compliance analysis 1. **Free Redistribution** ✓ — no restriction on sale or distribution 2. **Source Code** ✓ — no source restriction 3. **Derived Works** ✓ — modification and redistribution permitted 4. **Integrity of the Author's Source Code** ✓ — no patch-file requirement; attribution preserved 5. **No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups** ✓ 6. **No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor** ✓ 7. **Distribution of License** ✓ — same rights apply to all recipients 8. **License Must Not Be Specific to a Product** ✓ 9. **License Must Not Restrict Other Software** ✓ 10. **License Must Be Technology-Neutral** ✓ The Transparency condition (Condition 2) requires disclosure of AI origin but does not restrict use in any field — it is an attribution/honesty requirement, not a field-of-endeavor restriction. ## SPDX identifier We are concurrently requesting the SPDX identifier `AI-MIT-1.0` through the SPDX GitHub repository. ## Repository The full license text, README, translations, and supporting materials are available at: https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit-license ## A note on meta-context This license was initially drafted with AI assistance (Claude, Anthropic) at the direction of a human. We believe this is appropriate and have disclosed it in the repository. The license is itself an example of the category of work it governs. We welcome feedback from the committee and the community at large.
>> Best Regards
>> Bernardo
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 12, 2026 at 7:25 PM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please review the license submission instructions, https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process, and provide all the information that you are asked to provide when you requesting review of a license. This includes providing a copy as an attachment. Websites change, so we cannot rely on links to accurately reflect what is being submitted.
>>>
>>> Pam
>>>
>>> Pamela S. Chestek
>>> Chestek Legal
>>> 300 Fayetteville Street
>>> Unit 2492
>>> Raleigh, NC 27602
>>> pamela at chesteklegal.com
>>> (919) 800-8033
>>> www.chesteklegal.com
>>>
>>> On 3/12/2026 4:21 AM, Nik wrote:
>>>
>>> Dear OSI License Review Committee,
>>>
>>> I am submitting the **AI-MIT License, Version 1.0** for consideration by the Open Source Initiative.
>>>
>>> ## Summary
>>>
>>> The AI-MIT License is a permissive open-source license designed to address a genuine gap: existing licenses were written for human authors and handle AI-generated code poorly, creating false implications about authorship and copyright status.
>>>
>>> The license is deliberately minimal — it preserves the structure and permissiveness of the MIT License while adding three targeted changes for the AI context.
>>>
>>> ## The problem it solves
>>>
>>> 1. **False authorship implication.** When `Copyright (c) [year] [author]` is applied to fully AI-generated code, it implies human authorship and copyright that may not legally exist in most jurisdictions.
>>>
>>> 2. **No standard for disclosure.** There is no widely adopted mechanism for disclosing whether code is AI-generated, AI-assisted, or human-authored. This matters for supply-chain security, regulatory compliance (EU AI Act), and intellectual honesty in open source.
>>>
>>> 3. **Undefined copyright status.** Fully autonomous AI-generated code (no human creative input) is in a legal grey zone in most jurisdictions. A license that claims copyright over it is at best misleading, at worst invalid.
>>>
>>> ## What the license does differently from MIT
>>>
>>> The license adds one structural element (the Authorship Declaration) and three conditions/clauses:
>>>
>>> **Authorship Declaration** — a required checkbox at the top of the LICENSE file with three modes:
>>> - *Fully AI-generated*: no copyright claimed; code dedicated to public domain
>>> - *AI-assisted*: human-directed, AI-generated; standard copyright applies
>>> - *Human-authored*: AI used as a tool only; identical to MIT posture
>>>
>>> **Condition 2 — Transparency**: redistribution or use as AI training data must not misrepresent AI origin as human authorship.
>>>
>>> **Condition 3 — No Copyright Claim**: for fully autonomous code, explicit public domain dedication (with a perpetual irrevocable fallback for jurisdictions where public domain dedication is impossible).
>>>
>>> **Extended disclaimer**: adds three AI-specific disclaimers about training data provenance, regulatory compliance, and jurisdictional limitations of the authorship declaration.
>>>
>>> ## OSD compliance analysis
>>>
>>> 1. **Free Redistribution** ✓ — no restriction on sale or distribution
>>> 2. **Source Code** ✓ — no source restriction
>>> 3. **Derived Works** ✓ — modification and redistribution permitted
>>> 4. **Integrity of the Author's Source Code** ✓ — no patch-file requirement; attribution preserved
>>> 5. **No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups** ✓
>>> 6. **No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor** ✓
>>> 7. **Distribution of License** ✓ — same rights apply to all recipients
>>> 8. **License Must Not Be Specific to a Product** ✓
>>> 9. **License Must Not Restrict Other Software** ✓
>>> 10. **License Must Be Technology-Neutral** ✓
>>>
>>> The Transparency condition (Condition 2) requires disclosure of AI origin but does not restrict use in any field — it is an attribution/honesty requirement, not a field-of-endeavor restriction.
>>>
>>> ## SPDX identifier
>>>
>>> We are concurrently requesting the SPDX identifier `AI-MIT-1.0` through the SPDX GitHub repository.
>>>
>>> ## Repository
>>>
>>> The full license text, README, translations, and supporting materials are available at:
>>> https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit-license
>>>
>>> ## A note on meta-context
>>>
>>> This license was initially drafted with AI assistance (Claude, Anthropic) at the direction of a human. We believe this is appropriate and have disclosed it in the repository. The license is itself an example of the category of work it governs.
>>>
>>> We welcome feedback from the committee and the community at large.
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>> Nik
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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