<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi Carlo,<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your reply.</div><div><div><br></div><div>Regarding your concerns about model output, I refer to the email titled "Re: [License-review] Notice requirement for model output: OSD-compliant or not? (ModelGo)\u201d dated March 4, in which you wrote:</div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue"><span style="color: rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.85);"><br></span></font></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>I tend to agree. The output of a program (and of an AI system/model alike) should not be subject matter controlled by the maker of them. This would control conditions of use, not of downstream licensing (Freedom #0 in FSF's Four freedoms parlance). </i></span></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>I gather Simon has the same view. </i></span></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>If the output is "derivative" of anything, I believe it is of the training material, but then again this is more an unwanted accident than the rule, according to my to-date understanding of the interaction between those two bits.</i></span></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>It may sound akin to the requirement of the AI Act to watermark or otherwise make conspicuous that a content has been generated by AI, but I don't see a rationale in allowing this. We don't conflate policy requirements (as the one Dirk mentions, incidentally) and licensing conditions, the two must stay separate and depend on a lot of things that don't belong in, and cannot be figured out at, licensing.</i></span></div><div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>This has nothing to do with attribution, it is more akin, if anything to the advertisement clause, you are right, but misplaced, since it refers to the output and the output should be controlled by the user. The fact that is becoming commonplace is no excuse. Proprietary license was (is) commonplace when OSD was drafted too.</i></span></div></blockquote><div><br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>From my point of view:</div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><i><br></i></div></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>On 4 Mar 2025, at 5:40\u202fAM, Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:rfontana@redhat.com">rfontana@redhat.com</a>> wrote:</i></blockquote></div></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i><br></i></blockquote></div></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i><br></i></blockquote></div></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>This would be akin to putting an editor under a license that required</i></blockquote></div></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>any file created with the editor to have an attribution notice. Or, if</i></blockquote></div></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><i>there is some distinction, I'm not immediately seeing it.</i></blockquote><br></div></div><div><div><i>An AI model is not like an editor. As I discussed previously, the intention of this clause is not to enforce legal compliance but to ensure that open source remains substantial. It is a widely practiced approach in the ML community to extract knowledge from one model to improve another. In some cases, like DeepSeek, the new model can even outperform the original one.</i></div></div><div><div><i>Using your editor analogy, an AI model is more like an editor that is likely to output part of its source code. My intention is to require downstream users to provide attribution when they create a dataset using this content, which may then be used by others for training their models (e.g., Llama, ChatGPT).</i></div></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i><br></i></div><div><i><br></i></div></blockquote><div>In summary, I believe that when knowledge is transferred from an original model to a new one, the resulting model is likely to inherit similar characteristics (i.e., reasoning, math), or even outperform the original. The knowledge embedded in the outputs (e.g., chains of thought and reasoning capabilities) should therefore be regarded as part of the original model\u2019s \u201csource code.\u201d For this reason, both MG-BY-2.0 and MG-BY-OS-2.0 state:</div><div><br></div></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div><div><div><i>2.2(b)<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space:pre"> </span>If You Distribute a collection of Output as a dataset generated wholly or partially using </i></div></div></div><div><div><div><i>the Licensed Materials and/or Derivative Materials, You shall provide a prominent notice </i></div></div></div><div><div><div><i>in the Distribution stating that the dataset is generated using the Licensed Materials </i></div></div></div><div><div><div><i>and/or Derivative Materials provided under this License.</i></div></div></div></blockquote><div><div><i><br></i></div><div>This clause does not restrict the use of model outputs; rather, it requires users to provide notice (not license) when using those outputs to create and distribute datasets. Notably, MG-0 does not include such a requirement. I understand that further discussion is needed on whether attribution should be required for model-generated datasets. My intention here is to emphasize that models are not exactly the same as software, and should not always be treated as such. Thanks.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Moming</div><div><br></div><div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 14 May 2025, at 10:09\u202fPM, Carlo Piana <carlo@piana.eu> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div><div>Josh,<br><br>sorry for long silence.<br><br>I think that the new version of the ModelGo license does not seem to addres=<br>s the concern I have expressed against it, following up on your own comment=<br> on output (now in 2.bb). I think that imposing anything on the output of t=<br>he model is against the OSD as it is a restriction on the use of the licens=<br>ed subject matter.<br><br>So no, I am confused at how this new text should be addressing the above co=<br>ncern.<br><br>In a separate thread I have expressed perplexity on certain clauses, these =<br>seem to have been removed, so no issue on that end.<br><br>This applies to the updated versions.<br><br>Cheers<br><br>Carlo<br><br><br><br>----- Messaggio originale -----<br><blockquote type="cite">Da: "Josh Berkus" <josh.berkus@opensource.org><br>A: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review@lists.opensource.=<br></blockquote>org><br><blockquote type="cite">Inviato: Marted=C3=AC, 15 aprile 2025 1:46:45<br>Oggetto: [License-review] Please review revised ModelGo licenses<br></blockquote><br><blockquote type="cite">Carlo, Pam, Eric, Shuji,<br>=20<br>Moming has re-submitted revised versions of his licenses based on your<br>feedback. Please check them when you can and make sure that your<br>concerns about the licenses have been addressed.<br>=20<br>--<br>-- Josh Berkus<br>OSI Board Member<br>=20<br>=20<br>_______________________________________________<br>The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not nece=<br></blockquote>ssarily<br><blockquote type="cite">those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source<br>Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.<br>=20<br>License-review mailing list<br>License-review@lists.opensource.org<br>http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensou=<br></blockquote>rce.org<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></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>