<div dir="ltr">Hi McCoy,<br><br><br>Thanks for the update, and for putting the licenses on the September agenda.<br><br>I confirm the texts for approval are the ones in the GitHub repo:<br><br><b> - MG0-2.0: <a href="https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG0/LICENSE">https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG0/LICENSE</a><br> - MG-BY-2.0: <a href="https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG-BY/LICENSE">https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG-BY/LICENSE</a><br></b><br>They are identical to what I submitted in the Dec 2025 resubmission, and nothing has changed since; my May email only replied to Pam's point about Output.<br><br><i>Note. The NUS pages linked in my Feb submission mail (i.e. <a href="https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg0.html">https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg0.html</a>) still show the earlier version of ModelGo licenses. Updating them requires an internal content approval process at the university, so I will update them once the review concludes. The GitHub files above are the final texts.</i><br><br>Your reading of the history is right. The original "Attribution-Open Source" variant went through a rename and was later superseded by the Attribution version; I confirm it is withdrawn. Only MG0-2.0 and MG-BY-2.0 are up for approval. I'm glad to answer questions on the texts, thanks.<br><br><br>Best,<br>Moming</div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">McCoy Smith <mccoy@lexpan.law> \u4e8e2026\u5e748\u670828\u65e5\u5468\u4e94 10:09\u5199\u9053\uff1a<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><u></u>
<div>
<p>Dr. Duan:</p>
<p>I understand you may be frustrated by the ModelGo licenses not
yet having been decided upon by the OSI Board, but please
understand that this is in part as a result of how your initial
submission has progressed through the process. Although you did
originally submit a version 2.0 of the Model Go Zero and Model Go
Attribution-Open Source licenses in February, 2025:
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-February/005656.html" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-February/005656.html</a>
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-February/005658.html" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-February/005658.html</a>
those licenses have undergone quite a bit of commentary and quite
a bit of revision by you since then (including the
Attribution-Open Source license being changed or renamed to
Attribution-Share Alike, and which appears to have been withdrawn
from consideration in view of the Attribution version of the
license).</p>
<p>It appears to me that the last re-submission that was done was on
26 May 2026
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-May/006101.html" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-May/006101.html</a>,
in which you responded to some comments from Pam Chestek but do
not appear to have made any textual changes. There were some
textual changes made (mainly in response to me) in December 2025
<a href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-December/005945.html" target="_blank">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-December/005945.html</a></p>
<p>We work on a two-month review cycle, which normally would have
put your licenses up for Board review in August (the July Board
meeting was prior to two months from your final submission), but
we don't have an August Board meeting (hard to get a quorum in
August), in favor of our face-to-face Board meeting on September
24.</p>
<p>The Model Go licenses (which are Zero -- MG0-2.0 -- and
Attribution -- MG-BY-2.0) are on the agenda for the September
meeting. Please confirm that the texts that you wish to have
approved are those on the ModelGo Github repositories:<br>
<a href="https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG0/LICENSE" target="_blank">https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG0/LICENSE</a></p>
<p><a href="https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG-BY/LICENSE" target="_blank">https://github.com/Xtra-Computing/ModelGo/blob/main/MGL/V2/MG-BY/LICENSE</a></p>
<p>For the commenters on license-discuss: Please give any final
thoughts on these licenses before September 17 2026 so a
recommendation can be provided to the Board at our September
meeting.</p>
<p>McCoy</p>
<p>[on behalf of the Licensing Committee]</p>
<div>On 7/25/2026 10:45 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Dear OSI Community,</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
I am writing to respectfully follow up on the review status of
the ModelGo licenses, namely the ModelGo Zero License (MG0-2.0)
and the ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0).</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
I have noticed that the review process for the ModelGo licenses
appears to have been frozen again for approximately two months,
with no visible progress or further discussion on the mailing
list. I also reviewed the latest available OSI Board meeting
minutes, and it seems that discussion of the ModelGo licenses
has been muted or absent there as well.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Since my first submission of the ModelGo licenses to OSI in Feb
2025, we have witnessed the continued growth of Open Source AI
activities. Open models and open AI ecosystems are becoming an
increasingly significant and transformative force. At the same
time, the community is also facing a growing challenge from
\u201copen washing\u201d practices, where custom pseudo-open licenses are
used to present restricted AI models as open source.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
This was precisely one of the motivations behind the ModelGo
license project. My project manager and I started this work
because we believed that the open source community needs a
reusable, community-reviewed licensing framework for open models
\u2014 one that can support genuinely open model sharing while
distinguishing it from proprietary or pseudo-open licensing
practices.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
As a research institution, we have invested both project funding
and considerable effort into the development, revision, and
resubmission of these licenses. We fully understand that OSI
review is rigorous and that the committee and community members
are contributing their time and expertise. However, whether the
final outcome is approval or rejection, we respectfully need an
answer rather than continued silence.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
If there are remaining concerns, unresolved objections, or
additional information that OSI needs from us, please let us
know. We remain willing to provide clarifications, revise the
text where appropriate, and engage constructively with the
review process.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Finally, I would like to sincerely thank the OSI license review
team and all community members who have previously discussed and
contributed feedback on the ModelGo licenses. Their comments
have been valuable in helping us improve the drafts and better
understand the expectations of the OSI license review process.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Best,</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Moming </div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div id="m_-5547090131556412710mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div style="direction:ltr">
</div>
<div style="padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentcolor currentcolor">
<div style="text-align:left;font-family:Aptos;font-size:12pt;color:black">
<b>From: </b>Moming Duan <a href="mailto:duanmoming@gmail.com" target="_blank"><duanmoming@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 14:15<br>
<b>To: </b>License submissions for OSI review
<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank"><license-review@lists.opensource.org></a><br>
<b>Cc: </b>Pamela Chestek <a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank"><pamela@chesteklegal.com></a>;
Josh Berkus <a href="mailto:josh@berkus.org" target="_blank"><josh@berkus.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [License-review] [3rd Resubmission]
ModelGo Zero License (MG0-2.0) AND ModelGo Attribution
License (MG-BY-2.0)<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Hi Pam, Josh, and everyone,</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Thanks again for all the feedback over the past year, it's
been really helpful.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<i><br>
</i></div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<b><i>A quick follow-up on two things </i></b></div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<b><i><br>
</i></b></div>
<ul style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">
<li style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-style-type:"- "">
<div role="presentation">
<b><i>On the review status:</i></b> </div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
The board minutes from January 16 mentioned that ModelGo
licenses were still in discussions. Just wanted to check in,
what's the latest major concern about these two licenses?
Happy to work on addressing it : )</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<ul style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px">
<li style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0);margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:0px;list-style-type:"- "">
<div role="presentation">
<b><i>On Pam's point about Output in the Limitation of
Liability:</i></b></div>
</li>
</ul>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Just to follow up on that, with AI agents now generating and
auto-executing code, the risk around model output has gotten
pretty real, so having Output explicitly covered in the
disclaimer and limitation of liability seems like a meaningful
protection. And I noticed that both Meta (Llama) and Google
(Gemma) also mention Output in their warranty disclaimers,
which might be for similar reasons. So I'm leaning toward
keeping it as is, but happy to hear if others feel
differently.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Best,</div>
<div style="font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Moming</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;font-family:Aptos,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div id="m_-5547090131556412710mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div style="padding:3pt 0in 0in;border-width:1pt medium medium;border-style:solid none none;border-color:rgb(181,196,223) currentcolor currentcolor">
<div style="text-align:left;font-family:Aptos;font-size:12pt;color:black">
<b>From: </b>License-review
<a href="mailto:license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank"><license-review-bounces@lists.opensource.org></a> on
behalf of Pamela Chestek <a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank"><pamela@chesteklegal.com></a><br>
<b>Date: </b>Monday, December 15, 2025 at 20:52<br>
<b>To: </b><a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">license-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="mailto:license-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank"><license-review@lists.opensource.org></a><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: [License-review] [3rd Resubmission]
ModelGo Zero License (MG0-2.0) AND ModelGo Attribution
License (MG-BY-2.0)<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<p>Hi
Moming,</p>
<p>As
I read it, there is only one thing that applies to Output,
which is in the Limitation of Liability. But does the fact
that you mention it in the first place lead to a negative
implication that you haven't granted the necessary rights to
create Output? With software it's been a fairly bright line
that any output isn't subject matter of the license unless
it's a derivative work. Here, though, you have created
ambiguity about the legal status of the output by mentioning
it and also made the license much more complicated. </p>
<p>In
my view it's not worth including Output at all in the
license. The only liability you
<i>might</i> be avoiding is from the person creating the
output. The Limitation on Liability won't be a defense to
any claims from copyright owners, or those whose loved one
harmed themselves because the model encouraged them to do
so, or criminal liability. So I don't think it's worth the
trade-off, although I wouldn't reject the license for that
reason.</p>
<p>Pam</p>
<div>Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
<a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/4641+Post+St.+%0D%0A++++++++++++Unit+4316+%0D%0A++++++++++++El+Dorado+Hills,+CA+95762?entry=gmail&source=g">4641 Post St.</a><br><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/4641+Post+St.+%0D%0A++++++++++++Unit+4316+%0D%0A++++++++++++El+Dorado+Hills,+CA+95762?entry=gmail&source=g">
Unit 4316</a><br><a href="https://www.google.com/maps/search/4641+Post+St.+%0D%0A++++++++++++Unit+4316+%0D%0A++++++++++++El+Dorado+Hills,+CA+95762?entry=gmail&source=g">
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762</a><br>
<a href="tel:(919)%20800-8033" value="+19198008033" target="_blank">+1 919-800-8033</a><br>
pamela@chesteklegal<br>
<a href="http://www.chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>On 12/8/2025 6:57 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:</div>
<blockquote>
<div>Dear
OSI License Review Community,</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div>As
suggested, I am starting this new thread to submit the
updated MG0-2.0 and MG-BY-2.0
<span style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">licenses</span> that
address the comments from the second resubmission. The
major modification is the exclusion of models created
through distillation from the definition of Derivative
Materials, along with two improvements suggested by McCoy.
I have also provided word-diff comparisons with the
previous versions. Please feel free to share any comments.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
Word-diff:</div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
MG0: <a href="https://www.diffchecker.com/f8OumPRF/" target="_blank">
https://www.diffchecker.com/f8OumPRF/</a></div>
<div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)">
MG-BY: <a href="https://www.diffchecker.com/jVBWA9WF/" target="_blank">
https://www.diffchecker.com/jVBWA9WF/</a></div>
<div style="direction:ltr;color:rgb(0,0,0)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div>Best,</div>
<div>Moming</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 License Introduction (MG0-2.0)</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>License Name</b>: ModelGo Zero License</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Version</b>: 2.0</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Short Identifier: </b>MG0-2.0</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Copyleft: </b>No</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Legacy or New</b>: New License</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Drafted By Lawyer</b>: Yes, Rajah & Tann
Singapore LLP</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Approved or Used by Projects</b>: No</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>License
URL</b>:
<a href="https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg0.html" target="_blank">
https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg0.html</a></div>
<div><b>Introduction
and Video</b>:
<a href="https://www.modelgo.li/" target="_blank">
https://www.modelgo.li/</a></div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>Overview</b>:</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div>ModelGo
Zero License Version 2.0 (MG0-2.0) 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. MG0-2.0 is the
most permissive license in the ModelGo family.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>Complies
with OSD:</b></div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<b><br>
</b></div>
<div>OSD
3 Derived Work<span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">s \u2014
MG0-2.0 Clause 2.1 (a) grants copyright and patent
rights to create derivatives.</span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
OSD 5 and OSD 6 \u2014 No discrimination clause is included
in MG0-2.0.</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
OSD 9 License Must Not Restrict Other Software \u2014 No such
restriction is included in MG0-2.0.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<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" target="_blank">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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<ul>
<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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div>However,
not all licenses are well-suited for model publishing.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>Why
not use OpenRAILs? </b></div>
<div>Recently,
Responsible AI Licenses (<a href="https://www.licenses.ai/" target="_blank">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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Why not use Llama2 or Llama3 Licenses?</b></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">These licenses are
proprietary licenses that are not reusable. Furthermo</span>re,
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 style="direction:ltr">
<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 style="direction:ltr">
<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 MG0-2.0 with one similar OSS license \u2014
Apache-2.0</div>
<div style="direction:ltr;color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<br>
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)" role="presentation">MG0-2.0 defines licensed
materials and derivative works differently from
Apache-2.0, tailoring them to models.</span></li>
<li><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)" role="presentation">MG0-2.0 can govern the remote
access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.</span></li>
<li><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)" role="presentation">MG0-2.0 does not require
retaining attribution or stating modifications when
redistributing derivatives.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<blockquote>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014 License Introduction (MG-BY-2.0)</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<b><br>
</b></div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>License Name</b>: ModelGo Attribution License</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Version</b>: 2.0</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Short Identifier: </b>MG-BY-2.0</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Copyleft: </b>No</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Legacy or New</b>: New License</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Drafted By Lawyer</b>: Yes, Rajah & Tann
Singapore LLP</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Approved or Used by Projects</b>: No</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>License
URL</b>:
<a href="https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg-by.html" target="_blank">
https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg-by.html</a></div>
<div><b>Introduction
and Video</b>:
<a href="https://www.modelgo.li/" target="_blank">
https://www.modelgo.li/</a></div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>Overview</b>:</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<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
<span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">and attribution</span> be
provided when distributing the original Licensed
Materials or Derivative Materia<span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">ls (Licensed
Materials and Derivative Materials are defined</span> in
Clause 1). <span style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">A
statement of modification is required, if applicable.</span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,0,0)">
(Red content represents the differences from MG0-2.0
license)</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>Complies
with OSD:</b></div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<b><br>
</b></div>
<div>OSD
3 Derived Works \u2014 M<span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">G-BY-2.0 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 style="direction:ltr">
<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" target="_blank">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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<ul>
<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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div>However,
not all licenses are well-suited for model publishing.</div>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>Why
not use OpenRAILs? </b></div>
<div>Recently,
Responsible AI Licenses (<a href="https://www.licenses.ai/" target="_blank">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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<b>Why not use Llama2 or Llama3 Licenses?</b></div>
<div><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">These licenses are
proprietary licenses that are not reusable. Furthe</span>rmore,
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 style="direction:ltr">
<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 style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<div><b>Co</b><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)"><b>mparison with
Existing OSI-Approved Licenses:</b></span></div>
<div style="color:rgb(255,19,255)">
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 style="direction:ltr;color:rgb(255,19,255)">
<br>
</div>
<ul>
<li><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)" role="presentation">MG-BY-2.0 defines licensed
materials and derivative works differently from
Apache-2.0, tailoring them to models.</span></li>
<li><span style="color:rgb(255,19,255)" role="presentation">MG-BY-2.0 can govern the remote
access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.</span></li>
</ul>
</blockquote>
<div style="direction:ltr">
<br>
</div>
<pre><div>_______________________________________________
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" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-review mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</div></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<pre>_______________________________________________
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" target="_blank">opensource.org</a> email address.
License-review mailing list
<a href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</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>