<div dir="ltr"><div>We have identified additional uses of OpenMDW since the original submission. You can now track OpenMDW's use in public models at <a href="https://models.openmdw.ai">https://models.openmdw.ai</a>. </div><div><br></div><div>Mike</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 Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 7:52\u202fPM Joshua Gay via License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org">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"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Fri, Aug 28, 2026, 4:24\u202fPM Luis Villa <<a href="mailto:luis@lu.is" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">luis@lu.is</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"><div><div dir="auto"><span style="font-family:-apple-system,sans-serif">On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 3:10\u202fPM Richard Fontana via License-review <<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"></div></div></div><div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex" dir="auto">On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 5:45\u202fPM McCoy Smith <mccoy@lexpan.law> wrote:<br>
><br>
> For AI licenses, OSI doesn't have looser or stricter standards; they are evaluated against both OSD <a href="https://opensource.org/osd" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/osd</a> as with any license, and the OSAID <a href="https://opensource.org/ai/open-source-ai-definition" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">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.<br>
><br>
> 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.<br>
<br>
Just to be clear, the OSI already is supposed to consider "software<br>
freedom", as I noted earlier, as stated at<br>
<a href="https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process" rel="noreferrer noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process</a><br>
<br>
The purpose of OSI license review is, in part, to "Ensure approved<br>
licenses conform to the Open Source Definition *and* provide software<br>
freedom".<br>
(emphasis added - the important thing is that "conformance to the OSD"<br>
and "providing software freedom" are not equivalent)<br>
<br>
and<br>
<br>
"[The license-review participants'] consensus that a license does not<br>
ensure software freedom may, in some cases, be the justification for<br>
rejecting a license even where they cannot identify a specific aspect<br>
of the OSD or the approval guidelines below that is not met."<br>
<br>
That's not an articulated "test" but since adoption of that language<br>
in . . . 2019 or so? . . . the OSI has at least in some cases made<br>
reference to the concept of "software freedom" in explaining its<br>
dispositions of particular submitted licenses.</blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div></div><div><div dir="auto">Yes, and as I\u2019ve pointed out repeatedly since 2019[1], the addition of this test with zero articulation of any definition of the term, or any tests, or anything other than \u201cwe know it when we see it\u201d invites exactly the sort of endless argument we see in this thread. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Is CAL violating \u201csoftware freedom\u201d? no one can say, so we\u2019ll argue over it for a year. Is this license violating software freedom? no one knows what that means, so no one can say, so wellllp</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I actually do think values should form a part of the license-review process, and there\u2019s an interesting discussion to be had (maybe[2]) about some of what this license does. But \u201csoftware freedom\u201d isn\u2019t a value anyone at OSI can articulate (especially not \u201csoftware freedom, but different from what FSF means by it\u201d) so instead of discussing values we\u2019ll end up screaming about an ineffable and undefined term, hoping the current board agrees with us.</div><div dir="auto"></div></div></blockquote></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I would maybe be a little stronger than Luis and say that "Software freedom" is not undefined. It is an inherited, open-textured standard with a canonical formulation and a substantial interpretive tradition. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">And, also, yes, what OSI has failed to articulate is how it receives and applies that tradition. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Maybe, though, OSI does not need to state a much more precise definition in advance. It seems a little like the way English common law carries over into American law. The meaning gets worked out in specific cases, through precedent and analogy, rather than having legislatures spell out every possible application beforehand. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">OSI could do something similar by explaining how it applies software freedom in particular license decisions and letting those decisions gradually build up a body of precedent. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That could happen, for instance, as part of the Board's decision to approve or reject a license, or even now by going back and adding reasoning to important past decisions. It may only matter occasionally, but when software freedom is doing work beyond the OSD, a line or two explaining that reasoning would gradually give the standard more content.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><div dir="auto"></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
<br><br><div><br>Joshua Gay<br>Sr. Manager SA Open Source Community & Infrastructure<br><a href="https://saopen.ieee.org" target="_blank">https://saopen.ieee.org</a><br>m: <a href="tel:(617)%20966-9792" value="+16179669792" target="_blank">+1 617.966.9792</a><br>meet: <a href="https://calendly.com/jgay-ieee" target="_blank">https://calendly.com/jgay-ieee</a></div></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 <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.<br>
<br>
License-review mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>