<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>[this, and prior messages on ModelGo are personal capacity not as
Board member]<br>
</p>
<p>On this one, I'm going to reiterate some of my comments on the
MG0 & MG-BY licenses, 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>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Also, like the MG0 (but not the MG-BY) license, I have some
concerns about the nomenclature used here. I think a better name
for this license would be MG-BY-SA, as it is consistent with the
nomenclature used by Creative Commons for its licenses that have
the scope of this license: attribution + share alike/copyleft. The
"BY-OS" ("OS" standing for "Open Source") nomenclature I think is
less descriptive than it should be and/or could confuse people,
particularly since the other two versions of this license are also
intended to be open source (and indeed, are being submitted for
open source approval by OSI), so this is not the only "open
source" ModelGo license.</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p>Finally, there was some prior discussion on the obligation in
this license to provide an attribution to the model for any output
using the model. I won't reiterate that discussion, which I think
is interesting (and I think there is an argument that that
obligation arguably violates OSD 9 -- even though OSD 9 talks
about "other software" not "other output" or "other content").
Nevertheless, I wonder to what extent that analysis would impact
the OSAID's Data Information requirement, which is a bit like the
output requirement here but in the other direction. It's something
worth spending some time thinking about.</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/22/2025 7:53 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:F6215993-BF40-4C29-A881-A4C0D348D1CB@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Dear OSI Community,
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Based on previous discussions and comments, I have revised
the ModelGo Attribution-OpenSource License (MG-BY-OS-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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><font color="#00ff00">\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 Major Updates to Previous
Submission</font></div>
<div><font color="#00ff00"><br>
</font></div>
<div>
<li data-start="76" data-end="133"
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#00ff00">Add
conditions for distributing outputs as a dataset.</font></li>
<li data-start="134" data-end="232"
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#00ff00">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(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#00ff00">Remove
the annex.</font></li>
<li data-start="255" data-end="304"
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#00ff00">Eliminate
redundant clauses from the license.</font></li>
<li data-start="305" data-end="411"><font color="#00ff00"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Clarify definitions of </span><strong
data-start="330" data-end="349"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">\u201cDistribution",</span></strong><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><strong
data-start="350" data-end="365"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">\u201cLicensor",</span></strong><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> </span><strong
data-start="366" data-end="391"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Licensed Materials\u201d,</span></strong><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span><strong
data-start="396" data-end="409"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Output\u201d.</span></strong></font></li>
<li data-start="412" data-end="483"><font color="#00ff00"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Remove definitions of </span><strong
data-start="436" data-end="449"
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"License"</strong><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> and </span><strong
data-start="454" data-end="481"><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">"Open Source
Software\u201d.</span></strong></font></li>
<li data-start="484" data-end="566" data-is-last-node=""
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#00ff00">Refine
license clauses based on feedback from the previous round of
OSI review.</font></li>
</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><br>
</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-OpenSource<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-OS-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-os.html"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg-by-os.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-OpenSource License Version 2.0
(MG-BY-OS-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-OS-2.0 is the
a <font color="#07ff00">copyleft</font> license in the ModelGo
family, requiring tha<font color="#000000">t the original
license and attribution be provided when </font>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="#000000">A statement of modification
is required, if applicable. </font><font color="#07ff00">Derivative
Materials should be licensed under the same terms as
MG-BY-OS-2.0, and redistribution of original works or
derivatives should include the source code. This license is
intended to be an open-source model license that provides as
much openness as possible within the scope of the model itself
(in contrast to Llama2 license and OpenRAIL licenses). While
it is not a determining factor for an open-source AI system,
it can be considered one of its requirements.</font></div>
<div><font color="#07ff00">(Green content represents the
differences from MG-BY-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-OS-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-OS-2.0.</div>
<div>OSD 9 License Must Not Restrict Other Software \u2014 No such
restriction is included in MG-BY-OS-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-OS-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-OS-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-OS-2.0
Clause 2.2(b) includes conditions regarding model output.</li>
<li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">MG-BY-OS-2.0
can govern the remote access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.</li>
<li style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font color="#07ff00">MG-BY-OS-2.0
is a copyleft license and requires the source code to be
provided during redistribution.</font></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">
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
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>