<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Hi License-review list,<br>
<br>
Just to bring to your attention that Moming submitted three
licenses, the Zero, BY and BY-OS licenses. They are asking for
comments on at least the BY-OS version before going back for edits
on the licenses, so just flagging it for you if you have time. the
BY-OS version differs from the Zero version by the addition of
sections 2.3 (ii) - (vi).<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek
<br>
Board Member<br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/20/2025 6:35 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:D8CE7A5D-3F05-4AF3-8A45-32DD7881A14C@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Dear Pamela,
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks for the previous feedback on the MG0 license! I’m
especially impressed by the heated discussion on open-source AI.
I have gathered some concerns, and some of MG0 clauses are
likely not OSD-compliant. I plan to resubmit it for amendment.
Before that, would it be possible to open the discussion on
MG-BY-OS? This is a variant ModelGo license I submitted for OSI
review. Since lawyers may charge per amendment round, I’d like
to collect all comments together to optimize costs. Thanks!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming</div>
<div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On 15 Feb 2025, at 2:47 AM, Pamela Chestek
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"><pamela@chesteklegal.com></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<div> 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"
moz-do-not-send="true">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
moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="http://www.chesteklegal.com/"
moz-do-not-send="true">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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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 moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<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>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<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><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</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>