[License-review] ModelGo Attribution License, Version 2.0 FINAL CALL FOR COMMENTS

Mon Sep 7 19:37:12 UTC 2026

ModelGo Zero: 
https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG0/LICENSE
ModelGo Attribution: 
https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG-BY/LICENSE

On 9/7/2026 11:43 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> Can you provide a link or copy of the text of each license?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Pam
>
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> 4641 Post St.
> Unit 4316
> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com
> www.chesteklegal.com
>
>
> On 9/7/2026 10:44 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>> All:
>>
>> There are two ModelGo licenses currently up for consideration:
>>
>> 1. ModelGo Zero (basically, a -0 version of these licenses, with no 
>> obligations on licensee);
>>
>> 2. ModelGo Attribution (basically a -BY version of these licenses, 
>> with certain attribution obligations on the licensee).
>>
>> I'd like to have those interested in either: a) approval of 
>> AI-directed licenses; or b) approval of licenses in general to have 
>> one more chance to comment upon these. Please don't assume comments 
>> you may have made in 2025 are applicable to these licenses since they 
>> have changed quite a bit since then, and a copyleft version has been 
>> dropped from consideration due to concerns raised at the time they 
>> were submitted.
>>
>> To ease review, I've done a redline of these two licenses against one 
>> another, here: 
>> https://github.com/McCoySmith/OSI-License-Review-Compare/raw/refs/heads/main/ModelGo%20Attribution%202.0%20compare%20ModelGo%20Zero%202.0.odt
>>
>> This shows how the Attribution version of the license adds additional 
>> requirements versus the Zero version.
>>
>> A few questions I'd specifically like to direct to the 
>> commenting/reviewing community on this list:
>>
>> 1. These licenses trigger obligations (to extent there are any) upon 
>> Distribution, which 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." This sort of requirement is not 
>> uncommon in OSI approved licenses (for example, both versions of AGPL 
>> and the various versions of the Open Software License). Is this sort 
>> of obligation problematic for licenses designed for AI-models vs 
>> software? Is there a Freedom Zero issue with this sort of clause for 
>> an AI model?
>>
>> 2. The definition of "Licensed Materials" includes both the Model as 
>> well as "Complimentary Materials" defined as software used with the 
>> model. Is combining these two types of material together into the 
>> definition of what is licensed problematic? Some of the comments on 
>> OpenMDW-1.1 seemed to indicate some were concerned with that, but I'd 
>> like to know if in the case of these two licenses that concern attaches.
>>
>> 3. The Attribution version of this license has a termination clause, 
>> that allows for termination "if You initiate any legal action against 
>> the Licensor alleging that the Licensed Materials and/or Derivative 
>> Materials infringe any patent worldwide." Does this create a OSD 5 
>> problem because it only applies to Licensor, not Licensees (or just 
>> to specific works rather than specific parties)? Also, is this 
>> problematic in that a patent assertion can terminate all rights, 
>> including copyright rights (keeping in mind that at least MPLv2 and 
>> GPLv3 do the same)?
>>
>> 4. The termination for patent assertion clause applies to patent 
>> assertions against "Derivative Materials" -- i.e., subsequent 
>> modifications made by others. Is this problematic? This was generally 
>> considered to be too broad at the time that various patent assertion 
>> termination clauses were being drafted as it allowed for termination 
>> beyond the software the licensor originally licenses (one of the main 
>> concerns with how some people were reading "Liberty or Death" in 
>> GPLv2 circa mid '00s). Most of the OSI-approved licenses that have 
>> patent assertion termination clauses limit them to assertions against 
>> the licensed work, not subsequent derivatives.
>>
>> Plus one question for the drafter, Dr. Duan:
>>
>> There is a difference in the language in the preamble of ModelGo Zero 
>> vs ModelGo Attribution. ModelGo Zero specifically points out the Sec 
>> 3 disclaimer, but Attribution does not. Also Attribution says that if 
>> you don't agree to the terms, then no rights are granted; ModelGo 
>> Zero doesn't require this. Is there a reason for that discrepancy 
>> between licenses? Should they be synchronized in this section of the 
>> license to be identical?
>>
>> On 12/8/2025 6:51 AM, Moming Duan wrote:
>>> Dear OSI License Review Community,
>>>
>>>
>>> According to the previous discussions with Pam and McCoy, I have 
>>> made quick updates to the MG0 and MG-BY licenses. The major 
>>> modification is the exclusion of models created through distillation 
>>> from the definition of Derivative Materials.
>>>
>>> The newest text files are attached, and as suggested, I have 
>>> included word-diff comparisons with the previous versions. As I 
>>> mentioned in my last email, I intend to withdraw MG-BY-SA at this 
>>> time because I cannot identify a clear gap that this license would 
>>> fill, and also due to the “Preferred Form” concerns raised earlier 
>>> by Carlo.
>>>
>>> Please feel free to share any comments.
>>>
>>>
>>> Word-diff:
>>> MG0: https://www.diffchecker.com/f8OumPRF/
>>> MG-BY: https://www.diffchecker.com/jVBWA9WF/
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Moming
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 
>