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

[Shuji Sado]

McCoy-san,

On your Q4, I have become a little more concerned about the Derivative
Materials part after reading Moming-san's latest explanation.

I find the reciprocity rationale in that explanation quite helpful:

The patent grant has one source, and the promise not to assert runs to that
> source. A dispute between two people who never granted each other anything
> is outside that exchange.


But if that is the rationale, I wonder whether it actually makes the scope
of the Derivative Materials trigger harder to justify.

If the patent grant and the non-assertion obligation are reciprocal
elements of the same exchange between licensor and licensee, why should
that reciprocity extend to patent claims concerning Derivative Materials
created by the licensee, rather than remain tied to the Licensed Materials
that were provided under that exchange?

I am not suggesting that this necessarily makes the provision non-Open
Source. But applying the same nexus and proportionality approach I
suggested in the OpenMDW discussion, this seems to me to be the part of the
ModelGo termination clause that deserves the closest look.

Shuji

2026/9/8 2:45 McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law>:

> 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
>


-- 
Shuji Sado
Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
https://opensource.jp/
English blog: https://shujisado.org/
Japanese blog: https://shujisado.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260921/f3fe4ff8/attachment.htm>