<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Why don't agents fit into the description "derivative model
developed by transferring patterns of weights, parameters,
activations and/or Output from the Model, such as through
distillation methods or synthetic data generation techniques, in
order to replicate, approximate, or otherwise achieve functional
behavior that is similar to the Model"?</p>
<p>Is it because you don't consider them models? </p>
<p>Is it because they don't transfer patterns of weights, etc. or
create distillations or synthetic data? </p>
<p>Is it because they don't achieve functional behavior that is
similar to a model?</p>
<p>Some other reason?</p>
<p>One thing to worry about is that the vocabulary for AI is fluid
and constantly changing. You might not consider an "agent" a
"model" at the moment, but might it take on more model-like
characteristics in the future?</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<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 12/5/2025 9:17 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:1B2ED380-0E90-4969-B9D6-B267F105BD2A@gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Pam,
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would like to add that, according to the current
definition, Derivative Materials do not include AI agents
created using the model and its output. From my personal
understanding and background, this definition does not present
significant ambiguity, but I am not certain whether the scope
might be interpreted more broadly from a legal perspective. If
this Output-related definition introduces further ambiguity, I
will consider removing it.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming</div>
<div>
<div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Dec 6, 2025, at 10:23, Moming Duan
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:duanmoming@gmail.com"><duanmoming@gmail.com></a> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div>
<meta http-equiv="content-type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div
style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">Hi
Pam,
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For clarification, the definition of Derivative
Materials does not include the Output of the model
(at least that is my intention). It includes
derivative models created by transferring patterns
from the Output. However, I am reconsidering this
definition: as more AI agent systems are built on
top of model outputs, I am concerned that including
\u201cderivative models developed by transferring
patterns of Output\u201d may unintentionally broaden the
scope of what counts as a derivative, thereby
restricting downstream innovation and conflicting
with the Open Source spirit, which is not the
intention of this license. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would appreciate further discussion on this
issue, including the potential pros and cons of
removing this Output-related element from the
current definition. Thanks.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming<br id="lineBreakAtBeginningOfMessage">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Dec 6, 2025, at 01:22, 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> I renew my objections to this license
and the Attribution-ShareAlike version for
the same reasons I objected to the previous
version, starting with this email,
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-May/005766.html"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-May/005766.html</a>,
and as explained further in later emails in
the thread. I do not believe that putting
conditions on output of a model is workable
and, where the output is not a derivative
work under copyright law, it violates OSD9,
"License Must Not Restrict Other Software."
<br>
<br>
The change "Narrows the definition of
'Derivative Materials' by including the
phrase: 'in order to replicate, approximate,
or otherwise achieve functional behavior
that is similar to the Model'" does not
address this problem and, in fact,
exacerbates it. Output that will "replicate,
approximate, or otherwise achieve functional
behavior that is similar to the Model"
identifies output that is highly likely to
not be a derivative work under any stretch
of the imagination and therefore is well
beyond the acceptable reach for an open
source license.<br>
<br>
I do not believe these two versions of the
license can be approved.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<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>
<a
href="https://calendly.com/pamela-chesteklegal/30min"
moz-do-not-send="true">Set a meeting
with me</a></div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/5/2025
9:04 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:e325347c-0c66-4294-bfe9-0d01dddbd58f@lexpan.law">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>I'm going repeat my comments on the
MG-0 license here since they are equally
applicable to this license (which
appears to replicate the text of MG-0,
except for the addition of the
conditions in 2.2):</p>
<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" moz-do-not-send="true">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>
<br>
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>
<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>
<p>Otherwise, this license seems OK.</p>
<p>McCoy</p>
<p>[in my personal capacity and not as a
member of the board]</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 6/18/2025
2:31 AM, Moming Duan wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:883778D3-40CF-4DCF-B65F-AD07D9F427AD@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);">Following
our previous discussions in May, I
have made further revisions to the
ModelGo </span>Attribution<span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> License
(MG-BY-2.0). I am submitting this
updated version for OSI review via
this email. The license text is
attached.</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><font color="#ff0000">Removes
restrictions on model output.</font></li>
<li><font color="#ff0000">Revises
the termination clause to
provide for automatic
termination.</font></li>
<li><font color="#ff0000">Adds more
explicit granting of rights in
Section 2.1. </font></li>
<li><font color="#ff0000">Narrows
the definition of \u201cDerivative
Materials\u201d by including the
phrase: \u201cin order to replicate,
approximate, or otherwise
achieve functional behavior that
is similar to the Model.\u201d </font></li>
<li><font color="#ff0000">Removes
\u201cDerivative Materials\u201d in
Section 5: \u201cNothing in this
License permits You to modify
this License as applied to the
Licensed Materials.\u201d </font></li>
<li><font color="#ff0000">Fixes
typos and formatting issues.</font></li>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 </span><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">License </span><span
style="caret-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);">ModelGo </span>Attribution<span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"> License</span></div>
<div><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b>Version</b>: <span
class="Apple-tab-span"
style="white-space: pre;"> </span>2.0</span></div>
<div><font><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);">Copyleft:</b><span
class="Apple-tab-span"
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: bold; white-space: pre;"> </span><span
style="caret-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);">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);">Licensed
Materials and </span><span
style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">Derivative
Materials are</span><span
style="caret-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);"> </span><span
style="caret-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);">Why
not use Llama2 or Llama3 Licenses?</b></div>
<div><font>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);">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);">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);">\U0001f917</span></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming</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 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 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>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>