<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>I tend to disagree with the notion that they all have to be
enumerated, particularly where there aren't separate grants of
copyright and patent licenses. It's a double-edged sword -- when
you enumerate, then you risk failing to grant rights under some
regime that has different enumerations. Yes, more interpretation
is required, but an argument that some rights weren't granted
would be so contrary to the current understanding of open source
that I am not too concerned about it.</p>
<p>I agree on the patent termination - isn't there at least one
license that does include derivative works though?</p>
<p>Pam<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<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>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, McCoy Smith
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:f986bc24-a86c-4bc5-bc50-f3aca40dbc51@lexpan.law">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>On this one, I'm going to reiterate some of my comments on the
MG0 license, as they apply here equally (since the language is
the same):<br>
<br>
In terms of drafting, I dislike the articulation of the license
grant here as it uses various license permissions in a way that
is inconsistent with the rights the various intellectual
property regimes articulate them, but more importantly, leaves
out quite a number of them. This is in part the fault of using
older licenses (BSD, I think) as a starting model.<br>
<br>
In the USA, the copyright permissions are: reproduce,
distribute, prepare derivative works, display<br>
<br>
Outside of the USA, the patent permissions are (via Berne):
reproduce, broadcast, communicate, adapt, arrange, recite,
translate<br>
<br>
In the USA, the patent permissions are: make, use, sell, offer
for sale, import.<br>
<br>
Outside of the USA, the patent permissions are similar in scope,
but sometimes use dispose or other language rather than the
above.<br>
<br>
This license only grants the following rights under both
copyright and patent: use, reproduce, distribute. and "use the
Licensed Materials to create Derivative Materials." That means
it leaves out 5 of the 6 enumerated patent rights in the USA. I
think that newer licenses ought to be more rigorous in the way
they articulate their permissions lest a court (or a licensor)
argue that certain rights were reserved or not granted (such as,
for example, the right to sell, offer for sale, or import the
software under patents. I understand there are precedents from
prior licenses (BSD is the best example) for not fully
articulating all of these rights, but I think that precedent
shouldn't be used to allow for incompletely written licenses
now.<br>
<br>
Finally, the termination provision for patent assertions applies
to Derivative Works. There's a long-standing debate about
whether that sort of termination is overbroad, particularly as
it prevents the assertion of patents against downstream
modifiers of the upstream licensor's patents covering subsequent
modification out of the control of the licensor. One of the
reasons why the newer, popular licenses articulate their
defensive termination/suspension clauses more narrowly than this
is because of the concern that patent holders would be reluctant
to grant an open-ended patent license to downstream licensees. I
don't think that's an OSD violation, but it is an issue as to
whether a license of this scope would gain significant uptake at
least from patent holders.</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/22/2025 7:53 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:12881ADD-1CA2-4C3F-82CB-49A90C25561F@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
Dear OSI Community,
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0,
0);">Based on previous discussions and comments, I have
revised the ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0) with the
assistance of law students. I am submitting this revised
license for OSI review via this email. The license text file
is attached below.</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#ff0000">\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014
Major Updates to Previous Submission</font></div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#ff0000"><br>
</font></div>
<div style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<li data-start="76" data-end="133" style="caret-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font color="#ff0000">Add conditions
for distributing outputs as a dataset.</font></li>
<li data-start="134" data-end="232" style="caret-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font color="#ff0000">Remove the <strong
data-start="147" data-end="173">"Third-Party Material"</strong> and <strong
data-start="178" data-end="220">"Governing Law and
Dispute Resolution"</strong> sections.</font></li>
<li data-start="233" data-end="254" style="caret-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font color="#ff0000">Remove the
annex.</font></li>
<li data-start="255" data-end="304" style="caret-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font color="#ff0000">Eliminate
redundant clauses from the license.</font></li>
<li data-start="305" data-end="411"><font color="#ff0000"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Clarify
definitions of </span><strong data-start="330"
data-end="349"><span style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">\u201cDistribution",</span></strong><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><strong
data-start="350" data-end="365"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">\u201cLicensor",</span></strong><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> </span><strong
data-start="366" data-end="391"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Licensed
Materials\u201d,</span></strong><span style="caret-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and </span><strong
data-start="396" data-end="409"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Output\u201d.</span></strong></font></li>
<li data-start="412" data-end="483"><font color="#ff0000"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Remove
definitions of </span><strong data-start="436"
data-end="449" style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255,
255);">"License"</strong><span style="caret-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255);"> and </span><strong
data-start="454" data-end="481"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">"Open
Source Software\u201d.</span></strong></font></li>
<li data-start="484" data-end="566" data-is-last-node=""
style="caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><font
color="#ff0000">Refine license clauses based on feedback
from the previous round of OSI review.</font></li>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0,
0);">\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 </span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">License </span><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Introduction</span></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div><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 </span>Attribution<span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> License</span></div>
<div><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><font color="#000000"><b>Short Identifier: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span></b>MG-BY-2.0</font></div>
<div><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><b>Legacy or New</b>: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>New
License</div>
<div><b>Drafted By Lawyer</b>: <span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>Yes, Rajah
& Tann Singapore LLP</div>
<div><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><br>
</div>
<div><b>License URL</b>:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><a
href="https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg-by.html"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg-by.html</a></div>
<div><b>Introduction and Video</b>:<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><a
href="https://www.modelgo.li/" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.modelgo.li/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Overview</b>:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>ModelGo Attribution License Version 2.0 (MG-BY-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. MG-BY-2.0 is the a permissive
license in the ModelGo family, requiring that the original
license <font color="#ff0000">and attribution</font> 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). <font
color="#ff0000">A statement of modification is required, if
applicable.</font></div>
<div><font color="#ff0000">(Red content represents the
differences from MG0-2.0 license)</font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Complies with OSD:</b></div>
<div><b><br>
</b></div>
<div>OSD 3 Derived Works \u2014 MG-BY-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 \u2014 No discrimination clause is included in
MG-BY-2.0.</div>
<div>OSD 9 License Must Not Restrict Other Software \u2014 No such
restriction is included in MG-BY-2.0.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<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 (<a
href="https://huggingface.co/models" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://huggingface.co/models</a>).
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>
<div><br>
</div>
<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>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>However, not all licenses are well-suited for model
publishing.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<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>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>Why not use OpenRAILs? </b></div>
<div>Recently, Responsible AI Licenses (<a
href="https://www.licenses.ai/" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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>
<div><br>
</div>
<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">These licenses are proprietary
licenses that are not reusable. </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>
<div><br>
</div>
<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>
<div><br>
</div>
<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 MG-BY-2.0 with one similar OSS license \u2014
Apache-2.0</div>
<div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG-BY-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);">MG-BY-2.0
Clause 2.2(b) includes provisions regarding model output.</li>
<li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG-BY-2.0
can govern the remote access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.</li>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<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. <span style="caret-color:
rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">\U0001f917</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<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 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>
<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>
</body>
</html>