[License-review] [3rd Resubmission] ModelGo Zero License (MG0-2.0) AND ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0)

[横井雄太]

I have one question about how the final MG-BY-2.0 text is intended to
operate when Distribution consists solely of remote access.

The definition of “Distribution” expressly includes:

“providing the Licensed Materials or any part thereof as a hosted service
or remotely accessible service, such as API-based access or web access.”

Section 2.2(a), in turn, provides that if a licensee Distributes Licensed
Materials or Derivative Materials, the licensee must, among other things:

   1. provide a copy of the License with the Licensed Materials or
   Derivative Materials; and
   2. retain, as part of the Distribution, existing copyright, attribution,
   and author-identification notices.

I would like to understand precisely how those conditions are intended to
be performed where the Distribution consists only of hosted or remotely
accessible use.

For example, suppose a provider operates an MG-BY-2.0-licensed model
entirely on its own servers and exposes only an inference API or web
interface. The remote user can interact with the model and receive Output,
but receives no copy of the model weights, checkpoints, architecture files,
Complementary Materials, or other underlying Licensed Materials.

My reading is that this still falls within the definition of
“Distribution,” because hosted and remotely accessible services are
expressly included.

If that reading is correct, could the steward clarify the following?

   1.

   Does providing API-based or web-based access to the hosted model trigger
   the Section 2.2(a) conditions even though no copy of the underlying
   Licensed Materials is transferred to the remote user?
   2.

   If so, what constitutes compliance with the requirement to provide a
   copy of the License “with the Licensed Materials” and to retain attribution
   notices “as part of the Distribution” in that remote-access context? For
   example, would making the License and applicable attribution notices
   clearly and persistently available through the service interface or
   accompanying API documentation satisfy those requirements?
   3.

   More generally, how should the express inclusion of hosted and remotely
   accessible services in the definition of “Distribution” be reconciled with
   Section 2.2(a)’s language concerning materials and notices provided “with”
   or “as part of” the Distribution where no underlying model artifact is
   actually delivered to the user?

I am not suggesting that remote access should or should not be treated as
Distribution, nor am I suggesting a particular form of compliance. My
question is limited to how the current text is intended to operate in a
scenario that the definition expressly includes.

I think clarification would be useful for downstream users because the
submission materials specifically identify remote-access scenarios, such as
chatbot use, as one of the situations the ModelGo licenses are designed to
address. A user deploying MG-BY-2.0 solely as a hosted service should
therefore be able to determine from the license what actions satisfy the
attribution and license-notice requirements in that expressly contemplated
mode of Distribution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260903/86fe2523/attachment-0001.htm>