<div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;">"The license does not silence or penalize them"<br><br>The license does penalize them though. If a large enough company uses this license on their model and their model becomes ubiquitous (which is what the industry wants), then effectively no one can enforce their own copyright without giving up access to the thing they need to do their job.<br><br>The reason patent retaliation works in a FOSS license is that most people don't own a patent. With copyright, everyone owns their copyright from the moment they create something. Given that a model HAS to include a great deal of copyright-protected work, this license is effectively just an amnesty for, depending on how courts rule, large scale copyright infringement by model creators. I'm no fan of copyright but this is the world we live in.<br><br>We have open source licenses for models already, they're the same list as the licenses for software. Just use those and please stop trying to pretend like this is a brand new frontier.</div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;" class="protonmail_signature_block "><div class="protonmail_signature_block-user "><div><br></div><div>Eric Schultz</div><div>Digital Autonomy and Open Source activist</div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">they/them</div><div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">https://wwahammy.com</div></div>
<div class="protonmail_signature_block-proton protonmail_signature_block-empty">
</div>
</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><br></div><div class="protonmail_quote">
On Friday, August 14th, 2026 at 12:11 PM, Michael Dolan <mdolan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="protonmail_quote" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span style="background-color:transparent">I welcome the feedback. I am not aware of any other AI model-focused license having been submitted previously, and I apologize if we are pushing boundaries that OSI or this committee is not prepared to cover. I </span><span class="gmail-Asgive gmail-ng" style="background:none;outline:none;border-bottom:2px rgb(146,84,234);border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-left-style:none">had </span><span style="background-color:transparent">heard rumors there was interest within OSI in seeing the OpenMDW license submitted, which is part of why we brought OpenMDW here rather than treating it as <span class="Q6ibn ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">outside</span> scope. If OSI is the wrong forum, I will take that as a fair response.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">I'll try to address the questions and responses so far in one consolidated response. Richard, I don't see the message from Luis you referred to in your last email. I'm not sure if that is a mailing list delay <span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">or if that</span> email wasn't sent to the full list. </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">The feedback seems to focus on the termination provision. <span style="background-color:transparent">I'll repaste the OpenMDW-1.1 [5] termination provision here so everyone can easily take another look at it:</span></p><div dir="ltr"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:14.95px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"><br></span></p></div><blockquote style="margin:0px 0px 0px 40px;border-width:medium;border-style:none;border-color:currentcolor;padding:0px"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:14.95px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"><i>If you file, maintain, or voluntarily participate in a lawsuit against any </i></span><i style="background-color:transparent">person or entity asserting that the Model Materials directly or indirectly </i><span lang="EN" style="background-color:transparent"><i>infringe any patent or copyright, then all rights and grants made to you </i></span><i style="background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail-Asgive gmail-ng" style="outline:none;border-bottom:2px rgb(146,84,234);border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-left-style:none;background:none">hereunder</span> are terminated, unless that lawsuit was in response to a </i><i style="background-color:transparent">corresponding lawsuit first brought against you.</i></p></div></div></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><br></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Richard, the termination copyright trigger you focused on was a
deliberate change, and I flagged it as the sole substantive change from 1.0 for
exactly this reason. I\u2019m including some context and responses to the specific
concerns below. I will also try to answer Pam's history question, since the two
are related. I do not know the entire history of all licensing termination
provisions, though I\u2019m familiar with a few\u2026 I\u2019ve covered what I do know of here.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">1. It helps to separate the termination
trigger from the scope of what is terminated.</span></p></div><div dir="ltr"><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">On the remedy side, terminating copyright
grants is not new for OSI-approved licenses. A few examples:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">- MPL 1.1 [1], Section 8.2(a): a patent
infringement claim against a Participant terminates, on 60 days notice and
subject to a cure mechanism, that Participant's grants under Sections 2.1 and
2.2. Each of those sections includes the copyright grants (subsection (a))
alongside the patent grants (subsection (b)).</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">- CDDL 1.0 [2], Section 6.2: a patent claim
alleging the Participant Software infringes terminates all rights granted under
Sections 2.1 and 2.2, not only from the Participant but from the Initial
Developer and all Contributors.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">- OSL 3.0 [3] and AFL 3.0 [4], Section 10: the
entire license terminates upon commencing a patent action against the Licensor
or any licensee alleging the Original Work infringes. The OSL\u2019s Section 10 is
below:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"><i>10) Termination for
Patent Action. This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer
exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License as of the date You
commence an action, including a cross-claim or counterclaim, against Licensor
or any licensee alleging that the Original Work infringes a patent. This
termination provision shall not apply for an action alleging patent
infringement by combinations of the Original Work with other software or
hardware.</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">So full termination of all grants, copyright
included, has a history of precedent within OSI. I suspect what is unique in OpenMDW-1.1
[5] is copyright as a trigger for termination, and I will address that in point 3. below.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">On Pam's question about the history: my
understanding is that the retrenchment ran along two dimensions. The first was
the scope of the trigger. The IBM-PL [6] and CPL [7] provisions reached patent
claims unrelated to the licensed software (as did Facebook\u2019s later, highly controversial,
and never-OSI-approved BSD+Patents [8] grant). I suspect that <span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">is </span>may be the
source of the criticism Richard was also referring to. I would agree the trend seems
to have shown later licenses narrowed the trigger to claims that the covered
work itself infringes - which is what the OpenMDW does. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">The second dimension was on the remedy, with
Apache-2.0 [9] in 2004 limiting termination to the patent grants alone. But
that narrowing was never universally uniform. CDDL, with full termination of
all grants from all contributors, was approved in January 2005, weeks after
Apache-2.0. MPL 2.0 [10] in 2012 \u2013 and the CDDL retained termination of all
Section 2.1 grants upon a patent claim, including the copyright grant in
Section 2.1(a). And OSL 3.0 remains approved with whole-license termination. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">The consistent point seems to be the trigger: termination should be limited to claims about the licensed work
itself. The OpenMDW-1.1 is likewise scoped to trigger on claims against the Model
Materials, or in other words, the covered work.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">2. OpenMDW-1.1\u2019s termination trigger is based
on the licensed Model Materials (not outputs). </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Three key points about the OpenMDW\u2019s limits:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">- The trigger reaches only lawsuits asserting
that the Model Materials infringe. Claims about anything other than the
licensed materials do not trigger it. This is the same formula other approved
licenses align on.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">- There is an express exception for suits
brought in response to a suit first brought against the licensee. The provision
can only be used defensively, not offensively. Termination is reachable only by
a licensee who initiates, unprovoked, a claim that the very materials they are
using are unlawful.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">- The consequence is limited to the claimant's
own license. The provision does not bar the claim, impose a penalty, or affect
any claimant who is not exercising rights under the license. A plaintiff who is
not using the Model Materials is untouched by it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">I would also note that terminating upon suits
against persons other than the licensor has direct precedent at least in OSL
3.0 (there may be others). I included OSL 3.0\u2019s Section 10 above, which
terminates upon a patent action \u201c<i>against Licensor or any licensee\u2026</i>\u201d Note also
that OSL 3.0\u2019s provision terminates even upon cross-claims and counterclaims.
OpenMDW-1.1, with its express exception for suits brought in defensive
response, is narrower on that axis than an already-approved license. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">3. Copyright is in the trigger to maintain
symmetry</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">The function of defensive termination has
always been focused on symmetry: a licensee should not simultaneously exercise
the benefits of a license while asserting in court that the licensed materials
are unlawful. In 2004, for software, the realistic form of that assertion was a
patent claim, so Apache-2.0 and others focused on and directly addressed
patents. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Model publishers are facing a very different
economic equation than circa 1990-2005 software developers. Models are built
from large bodies of existing works, and that is where the model publisher\u2019s
legal exposure arises. For those model publishers, the realistic assertion they
face is that the licensed materials themselves infringe, and that infringement
claim likely runs under copyright, not patent law. A patent-only provision in
this context would replicate Apache-2.0's form while abandoning its function -
there would not be symmetry. And that was the clear feedback received after
OpenMDW-1.0's release.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">To be clear, the OpenMDW-1.1 license does not
take any position on whether or not there may be a legitimate copyright claim against
a model. The hypothetical fact patterns will belong to the parties training and
publishing models. Anyone with a claim against the Model Materials can bring that
claim, including a licensee, and all remedies, damages, and injunctive relief
included, are unimpaired. The only consequence is that a licensee who also
contends the Model Materials are unlawful/infringing cannot continue relying on
a license to those same materials while pressing that contention offensively.
Termination puts the parties back to the position they would be in absent the
license - which brings this back to a symmetrical position.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">4. The training data hypothetical everyone\u2019s
likely thinking about.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Generative models are tools used by users to create. With enough effort and precise, meticulous prompting, a user could
hypothetically manipulate a model to recreate what appears to
be a derivative of a copyrighted work. Even if the outputs appear infringing, that does not necessarily mean the Model Materials were
themselves infringing. Without any AI, anyone could use Gimp today to recreate
a derivative of a copyrighted work - that doesn\u2019t imply Gimp is itself infringing a work. For
the same reason, I think this discussion needs to separate discussion of the
Model Materials from the outputs.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">A claim that a particular output infringes,
without an assertion that the Model Materials themselves infringe, does not
trigger the provision. The trigger requires a lawsuit asserting that the Model
Materials infringe. Model Materials are defined as:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"><i>"Model
Materials" means the materials provided to you under this agreement,
consisting of: (1) one or more machine learning models (including architecture
and parameters); and (2) all related artifacts (including associated data,
documentation and software) that are provided to you hereunder.</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">The termination provision\u2019s phrase
"<i>directly or indirectly</i>" parallels Apache-2.0's \u201c<i>direct or
contributory patent infringement</i>\u201d and addresses theories of infringement by the
Materials. It does not sweep in claims about other works or outputs. Some open
weight model licenses currently in use in the industry (e.g. notably the Llama Community
Licenses) extend their termination triggers to claims about outputs.
OpenMDW-1.1 defensive termination does not apply to claims alleging copyright
infringement of the outputs - it does apply to claims about the Model
Materials.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Where a plaintiff\u2019s theory is that the Model
Materials (e.g. the weights) themselves are infringing, the provision applies.
That plaintiff is asserting that the licensed materials cannot lawfully be
reproduced or distributed. The license does not silence or penalize them. It
says they cannot at the same time keep exercising a license to reproduce and
distribute those same materials. That is the same symmetry rationale the OSI
accepted for patent retaliation, and I don\u2019t see why it should be limited to
just patent retaliation.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">5. The practical reality.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">The reality is that we\u2019ve seen a marked
increase in bespoke model licenses designed to cover the gaps identified in my
submission. The NVIDIA Open Model License [11] terminates on copyright or
patent litigation alleging the model infringes and was the inspiration behind the change in OpenMDW-1.1. The current Nemotron license
[12] extends its trigger to claims that outputs infringe. The Llama family [13] (while admittedly not OSI-approved) terminates on IP claims broadly (patent and copyright, claims and
counterclaims, outputs and weights), plus acceptable use restrictions. These are terms important to model builders and publishers. The trend has been that the valuable models people want to use are often not
under a license that would meet OSI\u2019s standards.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">OpenMDW was drafted to provide model builders and publishers with
a standardized license free of those restrictions: no use restrictions, no
output restrictions, and notice-only conditions. The
copyright dimension of the defensive termination provision is part of what
makes a fully permissive release viable in the current assertion environment.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">6. Richard's OSD 9 question.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:14.95px;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Treating the choice of a single license for a package of components released together as an OSD 9 problem seems challenging to me. </span><span style="background-color:transparent">I do not think OSD 9 is relevant here,
honestly. OSD 9 prohibits a license from restricting other software distributed with the licensed software. Specifically, it says:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in 0in 0in 0.5in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"><i>The license must not
place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the
licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other
programs distributed on the same medium must be open source software.</i></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">A simple example would be a license insisting
that other programs on the same medium be open source. The Model Materials are
not other software distributed along with the licensed work. They are the
licensed work \u2013 they\u2019re packaged and built to work together. The premise that a
single license covering a bundle of components violated OSD 9 would implicate most
software package releases I can think of. Every software distribution is a
bundle of conceptually separate components under one license: code,
documentation, build tooling, test data. The OSD has never required
per-component granularity in the grant or the remedy.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">OpenMDW-1.1 places no condition on anything
distributed alongside the Model Materials. A licensee may ship them with
proprietary code, copyleft code, or anything else, and OpenMDW does not touch
that software. That is the interest OSD 9 protects. If I recall correctly, the
SSPL [14] concern ran the other way: SSPLv1 reached the service provider's own
separate programs that were never provided under the license. OpenMDW's
termination reaches only what the licensor itself provided under the agreement.
IMO, the AGPL license family is far closer to an OSD 9 issue than OpenMDW-1.1.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">The symmetry rationale above also holds at the
level of the Model Materials release: a licensee suing over one component while
continuing to exploit the rest would enable both attacking and exercising the
same grant.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Regarding separateness: a model release
functions as a unit. The weights are not usable without the architecture,
configuration, and tokenizer, and the documentation describes that specific
release. Many apps bundle presentation code, backend logic code, SQLite for
data, and security libraries into a release. You can swap SQLite with a pre-populated
SQLite full of numbers, and you have nearly the same package.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span><span style="background-color:transparent"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif">Thanks,</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">Mike</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN"> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">References:</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[1] MPL 1.1: <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/1.1/" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/1.1/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[2] CDDL 1.0: <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0.html" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://spdx.org/licenses/CDDL-1.0.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[3] OSL 3.0: <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/OSL-3.0.html" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://spdx.org/licenses/OSL-3.0.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[4] AFL 3.0: <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/AFL-3.0.html" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://spdx.org/licenses/AFL-3.0.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[5] OpenMDW-1.1: <a href="https://openmdw.ai/license/1-1/" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://openmdw.ai/license/1-1/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[6] IBM Public License 1.0: <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/IPL-1.0.html" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://spdx.org/licenses/IPL-1.0.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[7] Common Public License 1.0: <a href="https://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0.html" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://spdx.org/licenses/CPL-1.0.html</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[8] Facebook BSD+Patents (commonly referred to
as the React PATENTS file): <a href="https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v0.12.0/PATENTS" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://github.com/facebook/react/blob/v0.12.0/PATENTS</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[9] Apache-2.0: <a href="https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[10] MPL-2.0: <a href="https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[11] NVIDIA Open Model License: <a href="https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/agreements/enterprise-software/nvidia-open-model-license/" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/agreements/enterprise-software/nvidia-open-model-license/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[12] NVIDIA Nemotron Open Model License: <a href="https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/agreements/enterprise-software/nvidia-nemotron-open-model-license" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/agreements/enterprise-software/nvidia-nemotron-open-model-license</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[13] Llama 4 Community License: <a href="https://www.llama.com/llama4/license/" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.llama.com/llama4/license/</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[14] SSPL v1: <a href="https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-license" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-license</a></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin:0in;line-height:115%;font-family:Arial,sans-serif"><span lang="EN">[15] GPLv2: <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html" style="color: blue; word-break: break-word;" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html</a></span></p></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">
<p><font face="arial, sans-serif">---<br>Mike Dolan<br>The Linux Foundation<br>Cell: +1.440.552.5322<br><a href="mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">mdolan@linuxfoundation.org</a></font></p><p><font face="arial, sans-serif">For help scheduling a meeting, please contact Jackline Mbithi <<a href="mailto:jmbithi@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">jmbithi@linuxfoundation.org</a>>.</font></p><p><font face="arial, sans-serif">---</font></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 11:26\u202fAM Richard Fontana via License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" style="word-break: break-word;" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 1:58\u202fPM Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:rfontana@redhat.com" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">rfontana@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Apache-2.0, MPL-2.0, and EPL-2.0 have defensive termination provisions<br>
> limited to patent assertions and only terminating patent licenses, if<br>
> I'm reading them correctly.<br>
<br>
As Luis's message shows, I was reading MPL-2.0 incorrectly. Defensive<br>
termination is triggered by patent assertions but terminates copyright<br>
as well as patent license grants. (That would seem to be true of GPLv3<br>
as well, unless copyright claims are implicitly also a "further<br>
restriction".) I think my reading of EPL-2.0 was correct.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<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 <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank" style="word-break: break-word;" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer nofollow noopener" target="_blank" style="word-break: break-word;">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>
</blockquote><br>
</div>