<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/28/2026 2:15 PM, Michael Dolan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFV=PSEBqNxDD5RLPMMCn1t747Y-U8Rr5x_6ScjnR-TK4BXOug@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at
5:06\u202fPM Richard Fontana via License-review <<a
href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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"><br>
Yes. Incidentally, the OSI should bear in mind that
OpenMDW-1.1<br>
functions as a "plain old software license" because it is
designed in<br>
part to be used for software. I might view it somewhat
differently if<br>
it was presented as, say, a "weights license" only (perhaps
submitted<br>
as a special sort of "AI license" under what I gather was
contemplated<br>
when the OSAID was adopted). I don't think the OSI should be<br>
classifying this as an "AI license" and adopting some new,
presumably<br>
looser, standard of approval for it based on that
classification. It<br>
is by design not a license just for models in a narrow
sense, it is a<br>
license for code as well as other stuff. If it is approved,
someone<br>
could conceivably use it in a completely non-AI-related
context<br>
involving just code.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Richard, this is a good point, and I'd like to expand on
it a bit. OpenMDW-1.1 was submitted for review as a software
license, under the same standard as any other license OSI <span
class="Asgive ng"
style="border-style:none;background:none">has </span>reviewed.
We are not asking for an AI-specific classification or a
looser OSD interpretation. Your observation about non-AI
reuse is correct and by design: inference code,
preprocessing tools, or other software licensed under
OpenMDW-1.1 as part of one release can be extracted and
reused by developers with entirely different model weights <span
class="Asgive ng"
style="border-style:none;background:none">that are </span>under
other licenses, or with no model at all. Each component
published under the license carries the OpenMDW grant, and
the license needs to work as a plain software license in
that very scenario.</div>
<div><span style="white-space: pre-wrap">
</span></div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>For AI licenses, OSI doesn't have looser or stricter standards;
they are evaluated against both OSD <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/osd">https://opensource.org/osd</a> as
with any license, and the OSAID
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition">https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition</a> which is
applicable to licenses designed to be used on AI. Beyond that, the
evaluation is the same.</p>
<p>If, for whatever reason, people believe there should be other
tests (like "advancing software freedom" or "Freedom Zero"), I'd
be interested in hearing that (although several have already
advanced those), but in order for the Board to understand what
those tests are and how to apply them to licenses, I think we'd
need to hear specificity on how to apply those tests in practice
(both against the recently submitted AI licenses: ModelGo-Zero,
ModelGo-Attribution, and OpenMDW-1.1, as well as against future
licenses). I'd also like to understand if those tests are equally
applicable to non-AI licenses, and if not, why not.</p>
</body>
</html>