<html><body><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000"><div>Dear Moming,</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>not sure, this could be the first AI-oriented candidate license to OSI, I reckon this will require more thought and internal discussion for a number of reasons, but Pam is the person who shall guide this process.</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>Two points I want to raise.</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>- on a cursory reading, it is not clear what is the role of Annex A. In the text there is a generic reference to "annexes". There is an empty column at the right of the table, what it is for? If it is for selecting some rights and exclude some others, I believe this would be a no-go. I also note that there is a reference to responsible AI, which at face value I believe is a undue restriction, making it incompatible with OSD and OSAID, tentatively.</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>- there is ambiguity as to the choice-of-law and dispute resolution provision. It requires knowing exactly "where the Licensor resides or conducts its primary business", which could be an issue. Also, when is this relevant? At the time of release, of which release? At the time when litigation is threatened, at the time when litigation starts? And what about a dispute between two subsequent licensees, both owners of a derivative, would this apply to each of them or to the initial? In general, I advocate for NOT having such provision in Open Source licenses, which causes more harm than good.</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>My two initial cents.</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>Carlo</div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div><br></div><hr id="zwchr" data-marker="__DIVIDER__"><div data-marker="__HEADERS__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;"><b>Da: </b>"Moming Duan" <duanmoming@gmail.com><br><b>A: </b>"license-review@lists.opensource.org" <license-review@lists.opensource.org><br><b>Inviato: </b>Mercoledì, 12 febbraio 2025 14:26:30<br><b>Oggetto: </b>[License-review] ModelGo Zero License, Version 2.0<br></blockquote></div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><blockquote style="border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;">Dear OSI Community,<br><br><div>I am Moming Duan, a researcher at the National University of Singapore and the submitter and license steward of <b>ModelGo Zero License 2.0</b>, which I am submitting for OSI review through this email. The license TEXT file is attached, and below is a brief overview of this license.</div><br><div style="text-align: left;"><b>License Name</b>:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">ModelGo Zero License</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Version</b>: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>2.0</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><font color="#000000"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Short Identifier: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span></b>MG0-2.0</span></font></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Copyleft:</b><span class="Apple-tab-span" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; white-space: pre;"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">No</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Legacy or New</b>: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>New License</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Drafted By Lawyer</b>: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>Yes, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP</div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Approved or <span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Used</span> by Projects</b>: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>No</div><div style="text-align: left;"><br></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>License URL</b>:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg0.html" target="_blank">https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg0.html</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div style="text-align: left;"><b>Introduction and Video</b>:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span><a href="https://www.modelgo.li/" target="_blank">https://www.modelgo.li/</a><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><br><div><b>Overview</b>:</div><br><div>ModelGo Zero License Version 2.0 (MG0-2.0) is a new license designed for publishing models (typically neural networks like Llama2, DeepSeek). It is one of the variants in the ModelGo License family. MG0-2.0 is the most permissive license in the ModelGo family, requiring only that the original license be provided when distributing the original Licensed Materials or Derivative Materials (<span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Licensed Materials and </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Derivative Materials are</span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span>defined in Clause 1.1).</div><br><div><b>Complies with OSD:</b></div><div><b><br></b></div><div>OSD 3 Derived Works — MG0-2.0 <span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Clause 2.1 (a) grants copyright and patent rights to create derivatives.</span></div><div>OSD 5 and OSD 6 — No discrimination clause is included in MG0-2.0.</div><div>OSD 9 License Must Not Restrict Other Software — No such restriction is included in MG0-2.0.</div><br><div><b>The Gap to Fill:</b></div><div>Model sharing is very common on the web, with over 1.4 million models currently listed on Hugging Face (https://huggingface.co/models). However, most of these models are not properly licensed. When publishing their models, developers typically choose from three main options (as seen in the model license tags on the Hugging Face website):</div><br><div><ul class="MailOutline"><li>OSS licenses, e.g., Apache-2.0, MIT</li><li>Open responsible AI licenses (OpenRAILs), e.g., CreativeML-OpenRAIL-M, OpenRAIL++</li><li>Proprietary Licenses, e.g., Llama2, Llama3</li></ul></div><br><div>However, not all licenses are well-suited for model publishing.</div><br><div><b>Why not use OSS licenses? </b></div><div>Traditional OSS licenses lack clear definitions regarding machine learning concepts, such as Models, Output, and Derivatives created through knowledge transfer. This ambiguity can result in certain ML activities (e.g., Distillation, Mix-of-Expert) being beyond the control of the model owner.</div><br><div><b>Why not use OpenRAILs? </b></div><div>Recently, Responsible AI Licenses (<a href="https://www.licenses.ai/" target="_blank">https://www.licenses.ai/</a>) have been widely advocated to govern AI technologies, aiming to restrict unlawful and unethical uses of models. While I acknowledge the growing need for such governance, these copyleft-style restrictions do not comply with the OSD and may cause incompatibility with licenses like GPL-3.0. Another concern is that these behavioral restrictions may proliferate within the AI model ecosystem, increasing the risk of license breaches.</div><br><div><b style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Why not use Llama2 or Llama3 Licenses?</b></div><div><font color="#000000"><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">These licenses are proprietary licenses that are not reusable. </span></font>Furthermore, they include exclusive terms such as "You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model" and copyleft-style behavioral restrictions.</div><br><div>In fact, the dilemma in current model publishing is the lack of a general-purpose license for model developers. Additionally, since no single license meets diverse model publishing needs, some developers resort to using CC licenses with different elements. However, CC licenses are ill-suited for this purpose as they do not grant patent rights. This motivated the drafting of ModelGo License family, which provides different licensing elements similar to CC but specifically designed for model publishing.</div><br><div><b>Comparison with Existing OSI-Approved Licenses:</b></div><div>Since I could not find an OSI-approved model license, I can only compare MG0-2.0 with one similar OSS license — Apache-2.0</div><div><br><div><li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG0-2.0 defines licensed materials and derivative works differently from Apache-2.0, tailoring them to models.</li><li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG0-2.0 Clause 2.4 includes provisions regarding model output.</li><li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG0-2.0 Clause 2.2(a) clarifies the ownership of Derivative Materials.</li><li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG0-2.0 Clause 7 specifies the governing law.</li><li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG0-2.0 Annex A includes a Model Sheet to help users choose and understand the license content.</li><li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG0-2.0 can govern the remote access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.</li><li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG0-2.0 does not require retaining attribution or stating modifications when redistributing derivatives.</li></div></div><br><div>If further comparisons or supporting evidence are needed to strengthen my claims, please let me know. I am more than willing to engage in further discussions with the OSI community about this license and contribute to promoting standardized model publishing. 🤗</div><br><br><div>Best,</div><div>Moming</div><br><br><br>_______________________________________________<br>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.<br><br>License-review mailing list<br>License-review@lists.opensource.org<br>http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org<br></blockquote></div></div></body></html>