<div dir="ltr"><div><span id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-bee04573-7fff-2004-8007-0793386f8fe2"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I\u2019m consolidating responses to a few posts since my last reply. Apologies for the length, but <span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">it was easier to consolidate my thoughts</span> than <span class="Q6ibn ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">reply</span> to each message individually - especially <span class="Asgive ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">with</span> some of the overlapping points.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">1. Prior OSI instances of \u201ccopyright litigation as trigger for termination\u201d.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Much of the discussion has revolved around whether OSI would approve licenses which terminate upon instituting copyright litigation (as opposed to patent litigation). While we haven\u2019t done an exhaustive search of the OSI database, one example of approval of a license with a comparable provision that I\u2019m aware of is the OCLC Research Public License 2.0 (OCLC-2.0), </span><a href="https://opensource.org/license/OCLC-2.0" style="text-decoration:none"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">https://opensource.org/license/OCLC-2.0</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">:</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Section 5. Termination of Rights</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">This non-exclusive license (with respect to the grant from a particular Contributor) automatically terminates for any entity that initiates legal action for intellectual property infringement (with respect to the Program) against such Contributor as of the initiation of such action.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">OCLC-2.0\u2019s provision is arguably broader than OpenMDW-1.1, as it applies to any \u201c</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">intellectual property infringement</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">\u201d claims, whatever scope that might include. It appears also to terminate the license upon claims in a </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">defensive</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> context (arguably; perhaps depending on how one would interpret \u201c</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">initiates legal action</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">\u201d and whether that would include counterclaims, etc.).</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I\u2019ll be honest that I\u2019m not familiar with OCLC-2.0. I suspect that most of us on the list are not, since it hasn\u2019t come up yet in this discussion. OSI might consider to whatever extent they view it as relevant precedent. I\u2019m just raising it as an example of at least one existing, OSI-approved license which includes more than patent litigation claims as a trigger for termination. </span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><br></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt">There are also interesting provisions in the RPSL-1.0 (see section 11.1, <a href="https://opensource.org/license/rpsl-1-0">https://opensource.org/license/rpsl-1-0</a>), Watcom-1.0 (see section 12.1, <a href="https://opensource.org/license/watcom-1-0">https://opensource.org/license/watcom-1-0</a>), APL-1.0 (see section 7, <a href="https://opensource.org/license/apl-1-0">https://opensource.org/license/apl-1-0</a>), CAL-1.0 (see section 5.3, <a href="https://opensource.org/license/cal-1-0">https://opensource.org/license/cal-1-0</a>), RSCPL (see section 8.2, <a href="https://opensource.org/license/rscpl">https://opensource.org/license/rscpl</a>) and Jabber (see section 9(b) and 9(c), <a href="https://opensource.org/license/jabberpl">https://opensource.org/license/jabberpl</a>). While these are all examples of terminations relating to patent infringement claims, each of these has aspects or effects that go well beyond the Apache-2.0 termination, which I suspect most on this list consider to be the norm/extent of termination. In the case of CAL-1.0 at least, it does also include a license that was approved in the relatively more modern era of OSI license approvals.<br></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">2. The scope of \u201cModel Materials\u201d.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The definition of \u201cModel Materials\u201d relates to several of the comments that were received, and since it\u2019s central to the operation of the license, I want to spend a few minutes focused on clarifying that term.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The drafters sought to create a license which would apply to many different scenarios involving distributions of AI model weights and other related artifacts, in particular as framed by the structure and terminology of the Model Openness Framework (MOF) (</span><a href="https://lfaidata.foundation/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/01/05_White_paper_MOF_Specification.pdf" style="text-decoration:none"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;text-decoration:underline;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">https://lfaidata.foundation/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2025/01/05_White_paper_MOF_Specification.pdf</span></a><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">). The goal was to create a license which was broad enough to apply generally, while also being short enough to be generally comprehensible to non-lawyers.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Some of the contemplated scenarios included the following:</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">a) Academic researchers who were adopting the MOF, and who wanted to provide a single license flexible enough to apply to many different types of content.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">b) Model providers who might be distributing some, but not all, of the types of components described by the MOF. For example, a MOF Class II (Open Tooling Model) distribution might include inference code and evaluation data, but omit some of the MOF Class I (Open Science Model) components such as research papers and data preprocessing code.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">c) Or, model providers who might have a distribution package consisting of some materials provided under OpenMDW </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">together with other materials</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> that are provided under other licenses. This could be in a mere aggregation sense; and/or where materials under a different license are more directly used by the OpenMDW materials.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The intention of the \u201cModel Materials\u201d definition, then, is for it to include the model weights and all related artifacts that are provided to the recipient under OpenMDW. For use case (b) described above, this means that only those materials provided to the recipient under OpenMDW are subject to its license grants and provisions. If the model provider does not include any particular \u201crelated artifacts (including associated data, documentation and software)\u201d in the distributed materials, then those are not subject to OpenMDW. </span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Or for use case (c), if those materials are included in the distribution under a different license, then that license would apply rather than OpenMDW. A point of comparison for an open source software license could be Apache-2.0 section 1, in its definition of \u201cWork\u201d as \u201c</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">the work of authorship, whether in Source or Object form, made available under the License\u2026</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">\u201d. For a project that uses multiple licenses (such as Apache-2.0 for code and CC-BY-4.0 for documentation, as is common for many LF-supported projects), a repository might have a top-level LICENSE file containing Apache-2.0, while also containing documentation files under CC-BY-4.0. Similarly, the language in OpenMDW is meant to reflect its intention to be a license generally applicable to various packaged and distributed materials, without precluding the possibility that a package might include some content under other licenses.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The specific situation that Pam raised regarding an OpenMDW distribution that includes </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">third-party</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> content under a different license is an important one, and I\u2019ll describe that in the next item below.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">3. Pam's MIT package example.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">OpenMDW-1.1 does not automatically relicense third-party code, and I think that premise may be the misunderstanding. A provider can only grant the rights it holds or can pass through. OpenMDW does not include a representation that the providers hold or have cleared every such right, and the license says so expressly: the disclaimers state that rights of other persons may apply to the Model Materials. The definition of Model Materials identifies which artifacts are covered, those "that are provided to you hereunder," and the grant then conveys, as to those artifacts, only the rights the providers hold or can pass through.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Let me propose a cast of characters whom I will reuse below: </span></p><br><ul style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">A publishes Model Materials X under OpenMDW-1.1.</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">As part of its distribution of X, A includes a component Y that B owns and previously licensed under MIT. </span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">C is a downstream recipient and user of X and, by extension, also of B. </span></p></li></ul><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Then, there are, in theory, three different license configurations that A could be distributing Y:</span></p><ul style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px"><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">under MIT alone; or</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">under OpenMDW-1.1 alone; or</span></p></li><li dir="ltr" style="list-style-type:disc;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre"><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt" role="presentation"><span style="background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">under the combination of both licenses (MIT AND OpenMDW-1.1, in SPDX license expression terms).</span></p></li></ul><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The first option (MIT alone) is probably the natural outcome for a \u201cmere aggregation\u201d sort of situation, or also for many situations where a component is included unmodified. If a component labeled as being MIT-licensed is included in a distributed package, then it probably would not be part of the OpenMDW-1.1 \u201cModel Materials\u201d, as it is not \u201cprovided to you hereunder\u201d -- e.g., under OpenMDW-1.1. This is probably akin to many typical open source software cases where a package includes a distribution of many unmodified components under a variety of different OSS licenses.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The second option (OpenMDW-1.1 alone) is probably not a real option. Presumably, A does not have the authority to unilaterally replace Y\u2019s MIT license with OpenMDW-1.1, absent B\u2019s permission.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The third option (MIT AND OpenMDW-1.1) might apply in cases where the model distributor is modifying a pre-existing MIT component, and also for some reason wants those modifications to be under OpenMDW-1.1 rather than under MIT. In these situations, if they did occur, downstream recipients of e.g. a file subject to both licenses would be looking at the license grants, compliance obligations, etc., from both licenses -- the same as any other OSS situation involving multiple licenses.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Even if A labels Y as OpenMDW-1.1, that does not diminish B's ownership of Y or the terms on which B offers it, and it does not negate C's rights under MIT, because MIT grants permission directly to any person obtaining a copy. C's rights in Y run from B, not from A's labeling. For the same reason, termination under OpenMDW-1.1 never reaches the licenses B grants under MIT. Termination ends only "rights and grants made to you hereunder," and B's MIT grants are not among them.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">On the second half of Pam's example: the MIT licensor is B, the owner of Y, who is also using X as an OpenMDW licensee. If B files a lawsuit asserting that X infringes B's copyright in Y, the termination provision applies by its terms. Three observations. First, nothing before litigation is affected by or relevant to the license. Compliance demands, cure negotiations, and every enforcement tool short of a filed lawsuit remain fully available, and community enforcement norms have long treated litigation as the last resort. Second, when B does sue, every remedy remains available, including damages and an injunction that could halt distribution of X entirely. B needs no license from anyone to bring the claim. Third, what B gives up is B's own license to X while B maintains an offensive suit asserting X\u2019s distribution is unlawful. B's ownership of Y, B's MIT licensing of Y to the world, and B's remedies are all untouched. Additionally, and as a practical matter, if B prevails in its copyright litigation, then A\u2019s distribution and licensing of X to B </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">and to the world at large</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"> is probably going to end in any case.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">A carve-out for good faith license enforcement suits would, in my view, be unadministrable, since every plaintiff characterizes its own claim as legitimate enforcement, and a license term cannot adjudicate motive. The responsive suit exception is the administrable line.</span></p><br><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">4. Pam's question on why the trigger stops at patent and copyright.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The trigger tracks the realistic assertion risks for publicly released model materials, not exact alignment with the grant. Apache-2.0 grants both copyright and patent licenses but terminates on patent claims only, so a trigger narrower than the grant is common. The omitted IP regimes also fit poorly. Trade secrets are misappropriated rather than infringed, and a trade secret claim about openly published materials is close to a contradiction, since publication destroys secrecy. Sui generis database rights exist in only some jurisdictions. The drafting initially started with OpenMDW-1.0 using a patent trigger but was expanded in OpenMDW-1.1 to include copyright, where infringement suits about model materials realistically arise, without going as far as terminating for any \u201cintellectual property infringement\u201d claims as OCLC-2.0 does. </span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">5. The "solely responsible" paragraph is a disclaimer, not a covenant.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I want to respond to this carefully, because the scenario described depends on a reading the OpenMDW-1.0 and -1.1 texts do not support, and one the drafters did not intend. Speaking as the license steward: that paragraph allocates risk between the parties. It imposes no duties on the licensee and cannot support termination. The full paragraph has 3 parts, which are also relevant, so I\u2019ll repost it below:</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap"><br><br></span></p><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-left:36pt;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">YOU ARE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR (1) CLEARING RIGHTS OF OTHER PERSONS THAT MAY APPLY TO THE MODEL MATERIALS OR ANY USE THEREOF, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY PERSON'S COPYRIGHTS OR OTHER RIGHTS INCLUDED OR EMBODIED IN THE MODEL MATERIALS; (2) OBTAINING ANY NECESSARY CONSENTS, PERMISSIONS OR OTHER RIGHTS REQUIRED FOR ANY USE OF THE MODEL MATERIALS; OR (3) PERFORMING ANY DUE DILIGENCE OR UNDERTAKING ANY OTHER INVESTIGATIONS INTO THE MODEL MATERIALS OR ANYTHING INCORPORATED OR EMBODIED THEREIN.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">The paragraph contains no obligation language. There is no "you shall clear" or "you must obtain." "You are solely responsible for" allocates risk between the providers and the recipient. The providers bear no responsibility for rights clearance. The paragraph is the recipient-side complement of the preceding paragraph, in which the providers disclaim the warranties of title and noninfringement. The structure also confirms it. The three items are joined by "or," where a list of affirmative duties would be conjunctive. And item (3), read as a duty, would require every licensee to perform due diligence and investigations before any use. No known permissive license imposes that, and this one similarly does not. The paragraph says that whatever clearance, consents, or diligence a licensee's particular use may need, that work and that risk are the licensee's responsibility, because the providers promise nothing.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">I\u2019ll note that similarly structured language appears in the disclaimers for some of the other widely used OSI-approved software licenses, such as Apache-2.0 section 7 (\u201c</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">You are solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">\u201d), and EPL-2.0 section 5 (\u201c</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Each Recipient is solely responsible for determining the appropriateness of using and distributing the Program and assumes all risks associated with its exercise of rights under this Agreement\u2026</span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">\u201d) and its predecessors. As with OpenMDW-1.1, these provisions in the context of a warranty disclaimer reflect an allocation of risk, not an affirmative duty.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Because the paragraph imposes no requirement, there is nothing in it to comply with from a license obligations perspective. The "subject to your compliance" language does not trigger based on an allocation of potential risk. The license has one termination mechanism, the litigation provision, and one affirmative condition, notice retention on distribution. There is no lever for a licensor to terminate a licensee for failing to clear training materials. No such duty exists under this license.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">6. Richard's question/points on the scope of Model Materials.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Richard, you wrote that the open-ended reading is probably not what was intended. Correct, and I will state the LF\u2019s position here so it is on the record. Model Materials means the materials provided to the licensee under the agreement that accompanies a provision of materials. The definition says this twice: "provided to you under this agreement" and "that are provided to you hereunder." It is not the licensor's catalog. It does not reach materials the licensor separately releases under the same license text, whether before or after, and it does not expand over time. Each provision of materials under the license is its own agreement covering what was provided. If Acme Corp releases component D under GPL-2.0 and then releases component E under GPL-2.0, they are not combined or treated as a single licensed work. A claim asserting that E infringes does not terminate rights received under D\u2019s separate agreement, and I couldn\u2019t imagine GPL-2.0\u2019s statement that a violation \u201cwill automatically terminate your rights under this License\u201d being read as terminating rights to multiple different GPL-2.0 components. </span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Richard\u2019s email: >> </span><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-style:italic;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">By definition, I think, if you have more than one model, you don't have a unit that is packaged and built to work together. For example you might have a copyright claim against model A (hosted on Hugging Face) leading to termination of licenses to documentation for possibly-unrelated models B and C (published on GitHub repositories or websites, say, or maybe this even extends to things like arxiv papers).</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">So in your example, a claim against model A does not reach documentation for unrelated models B and C provided separately, because those were not provided under the agreement involved in the claim against model A. The plural "one or more machine learning models" covers releases that genuinely ship multiple models together, such as a family of variants provided as one set, not every model a licensor has ever published - and even a publisher may release artifacts separate from the OpenMDW model release. Though it would make things more fun to evaluate other licenses and publishers\u2019 practices, publisher practices don\u2019t make a license noncompliant with the OSD. </span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">You are right that the license does not define "release," or use that term, and that the operative act is what is provided to the licensee. Where a licensor provides one set of materials across multiple repositories as one release, what was provided together under the agreement is what the agreement covers, and I agree the licensor should make that boundary clearly legible. Our drafting discussions considered using SPDX short identifiers / SBOMs as a simple way to meet this intent - to ensure the license identifier and/or list of artifacts travels with the artifacts. Your enumeration suggestion is constructive, and we can likely publish guidance encouraging OpenMDW licensors to also enumerate the contents of each release, for example in a manifest or model card, consistent with the Model Openness Framework practice of itemizing release components. I do not believe this requires a change to the license text, since the definition already turns on what is provided.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">7. Richard's question on scoping termination to the parameters alone.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">David made the conceptual point already: a single instrument granting one bargain across overlapping regimes should not let a licensee attack part of the bargain while retaining the rest. The same holds across the materials provided together. If termination reached only the parameters, a licensee could sue asserting the weights are infringing while keeping their license to the architecture, configuration, and tokenizer provided with those weights, components with little use apart from them. That recreates the asymmetry the provision closes. It would also invite pleading gamesmanship, since a complaint can frame the same theory against whichever component preserves the most license value. And no precedent structure carves the remedy by component within the covered work.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">8. OpenMDW 1.0?</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">As in the submission, we remain glad to have the committee review OpenMDW-1.0 in parallel if it prefers. However, I want to be clear that we expect OpenMDW-1.1 to be the path forward and a more widely adopted license. If this review also satisfies the requirement to include OpenMDW-1.0 that would be welcome as well.</span></p><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(0,0,0);background-color:transparent;font-variant:normal;vertical-align:baseline;white-space:pre-wrap">Mike</span></p></span><br class="gmail-Apple-interchange-newline"></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="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">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">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 Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 7:36\u202fPM Richard Fontana <<a href="mailto:rfontana@redhat.com">rfontana@redhat.com</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 Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 1:09\u202fPM Michael Dolan<br>
<<a href="mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org" target="_blank">mdolan@linuxfoundation.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Treating the choice of a single license for a package of components released together as an OSD 9 problem seems challenging to me.<br>
<br>
OpenMDW doesn't say the Model Materials have to be released together,<br>
for one thing. In a separate response I pointed out the possibility of<br>
splitting up the Model Materials across differently hosted<br>
repositories in a way that might deprive the licensee of adequate<br>
understanding of the risk theoretically imposed by the defensive<br>
termination provision.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
I do not think OSD 9 is relevant here, honestly. OSD 9 prohibits a<br>
license from restricting other software distributed with the licensed<br>
software. Specifically, it says:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
[ . . . ]<br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
I think this is right, but OpenMDW doesn't talk at all about "a<br>
release" as some sort of clear act that can be pointed to. It doesn't<br>
say that the things making up the Model Materials must be "packaged<br>
and built to work together". Perhaps it could? In another response I<br>
noted that Model Materials can include more than one model, which<br>
means more than one model release (including multiple sets of<br>
materials related in some sense to those models). By definition, I<br>
think, if you have more than one model, you don't have a unit that is<br>
packaged and built to work together. For example you might have a<br>
copyright claim against model A (hosted on Hugging Face) leading to<br>
termination of licenses to documentation for possibly-unrelated models<br>
B and C (published on GitHub repositories or websites, say, or maybe<br>
this even extends to things like arxiv papers). I know this is<br>
probably not what was intended or contemplated. Again, a way to<br>
address this might be for the licensor to clearly identify all the<br>
elements of a specific "release". My basic thought here is that the<br>
copyright assertion termination feature would be at least somewhat<br>
less problematic if it were clearer in principle what the Model<br>
Materials is supposed to cover in any one licensing instance. If, for<br>
example, you intend Model Materials to be truly open ended - anything<br>
the licensor ever releases under OpenMDW, now or in the future - that<br>
strikes me as a radical idea, but possibly worth considering by the<br>
OSI as a valuable evolution of open source licensing. But I contend<br>
that the meaning of Model Materials in the current license is unclear.<br>
<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div>