<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Moming,<br>
<br>
The OSI is not likely to approve a license that has this particular
use restriction. To understand why, I suggest you read this article:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://the.webm.ink/just-obey-the-law">https://the.webm.ink/just-obey-the-law</a><br>
<br>
Although the OSI has approved licenses with jurisdictional clauses
in the past, they are disfavored. Stating a specific jurisdiction is
not a good idea (as you recognize), since neither of the parties may
be in that jurisdiction, making it inconvenient for both parties.
Trying to define it as tied to the licensor's place of business is
problematic for the reasons Carlo described. Experience has shown
that defining jurisdiction only causes more problems that it solves.<br>
<br>
I consider not only Annex A, but any annex, a problem. Your license
allows a licensor to add unknown content to the license in the form
of "annexes" ("'License' means the terms and conditions for use,
reproduction and distribution as set out in [Sections 1 to 8 and <b>the
annexes</b>] of this License"). The OSI will not approve licenses
that are not self-contained because of the high likelihood that the
added content will not comply with the OSD or OSAID. So the
possibility of undefined "annexes" isn't acceptable.<br>
<br>
Further, in my opinion this Annex A is not acceptable. As I
understand it, Annex A is meant to be redundant to what the text of
the license says. If so, it is superfluous. However, its existence
invites others to change an X to a check, or vice versa, changing
the actual license itself to one that is non-free. For example
someone could change the X to a check for "Use Restrictions (RAI) on
Licensed Materials, Derivative Materials and Output" and
nevertheless claim that their system is open source because they
used the ModelGo Zero License. To be approved, licenses must be
immutable. You have described the Annex as informative - it's
perfectly fine to use as an educational or informational tool
elsewhere, but it shouldn't be part of the license itself.<br>
<br>
I realize some of my comments seem to go against what lawyers who
don't work in the field believe are good drafting practices.
However, our standards are time-tested, with 20 years of analysis
and review of these licenses to understand what makes them good or
bad. We have also learned that these licenses have incredibly long
lifespans, so it's very important to get them as right as possible.
As Carlo also noted, this is the first candidate for an AI license,
so we will be exceptionally careful in the review. I haven't looked
at it carefully myself yet, but I expect that I will have more
comments on the drafting once I have. I personally am rooting for
you, I would be very happy to have an OSI-approved OSAID license, so
I hope we can all collaborate to make this an acceptable license.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek (in my personal
capacity)<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PLEASE NOTE OUR NEW MAILING ADDRESS<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/13/2025 10:50 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:67293DF8-25CF-4B51-9944-994CBAAC3C1C@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Eric,<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 14 Feb 2025, at 10:56 AM, Eric Schultz
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eric@wwahammy.com"><eric@wwahammy.com></a> wrote:</div>
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size:
14px;"><br>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size:
14px;">To me, that implies that the usage of licensed
works are dependent upon the usage being legal. That's not
a requirement that an OSD compliant license can have;
additionally, it's unnecessary, the state already enforces
those rules, you don't need the license holder to do so as
well.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I am not a lawyer, but my intuition is that a license will
be ineffective or unenforceable if its terms do not comply
with applicable law. </div>
<div>Regarding OSD compliance, I think 2.3(a)(i) is not a
discrimination clause against persons or groups, as every
entity can be sued and suspected of breaking the law. </div>
<div>My lawyer also advised retaining this clause, as we do not
intend for the licensor to be liable for the illegal use of
licensed materials.</div>
<div>I failed to convince my lawyer to remove this clause
because I cannot identify who would be harmed by it, and its
removal may increase potential risks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size:
14px;">PS: While the Open Source AI definition says you
don't have to include the source data to be an "Open
Source AI", I would disagree with that conclusion. But
that's my own two cents.<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>My personal view is that open-source AI systems require
open-source datasets, but open-source models do not. I believe
the scope of open source should not extend to parts governed by
another license or applicable law, as such proliferation could
cause inconsistencies and conflicts in license terms. As an
open-source model, it should, at a minimum, keep its parameters
and architecture available and should not prohibit any kind of
use of its generated output, such as reverse engineering or
distillation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
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
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>