<html aria-label="message body"><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 McCoy,<div><br></div><div><br></div><div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>1. The disclaimers are not made "conspicuous" as that term is
defined in UCC 2-316: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316">https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316</a> That
has been interpreted as requiring something like ALL CAPS or bold,
or a different color, or a box (although the criteria changed in
2022). This isn't necessarily a flaw (whether UCC is relevant to
open source licenses is an interesting question) but the practice
seems to be that most newer open source licenses try to adhere to
this requirement (most by using ALL CAPS since that tends to be
the only way to do this with .txt files or ASCII -- which
non-lawyers tend to dislike because they interpret it as screaming
without understanding why it's done that way).<br></p></div></div></blockquote><div>I guess this may be because our Singapore lawyer didn\u2019t follow it during the initial license drafting. However, I\u2019ve also noticed that the newest model licenses, such as Gemma and Llama 3, follow the practice of using ALL CAPS in disclaimers and limitation of liability. I think using ALL CAPS would make the ModelGo licenses appear more international, so I\u2019ll make the change.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div><div><p>
2. I find the way the grants are structured sub-optimal in the way
that it handles the right of performance under copyright law.
Rather than being in the grant, it is subsumed into the definition
of "Distribution/Distribute" and then grants a right to
Distribute. All rights are granted (which is good, that way you
don't have to rely on implied grants) but you do need to dig into
the definitions to get there.</p></div></div></blockquote><div>Thank you for pointing that out. I will check with legal.</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><p>As to the Attribution version of the license, my only comment is
this license requires in Section 2.2(i) that a copy of the license
be provided. This is a fairly common provision of many so called
"permissive" or non-copyleft licenses although I've always
wondered what value this requirement provides, given that this
license is intended (I believe) to be non-copyleft.</p></blockquote></div><div>Yes, it is a non-copyleft license. I think providing the original license is a good common practice, as it helps substream users understand their rights to use these licensed materials.</div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best,</div><div>Moming</div></body></html>