<!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 8/30/2026 2:50 PM, Pamela Chestek
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:85c6ae80-eb3c-4b94-ac7a-975d6f26ebdc@chesteklegal.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div class="moz-signature">McCoy, you asked for a definition of
"software freedom" and Moming's response is similar to my
thoughts:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/29/2026 11:10 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:TY7PR01MB15702B5B2FF40C26015621ECBADAA2@TY7PR01MB15702.jpnprd01.prod.outlook.com">
<p
style="text-align: left; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none;"><span
style="font-family: -apple-system, "Segoe UI", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 15px; color: rgb(29, 29, 43);">Here
is a simple test of my own: <b>if 99% of the world's models
were released under license X, would our ecosystem be
better off?</b></span></p>
</blockquote>
<p>My premise is that the everyone benefits from a software
commons, so, does the license encourage or discourage
sharing? "Software freedom" is the ability to do anything you
want with the software. A few conditions/impairments are allowed
because they indirectly encourage the growth of the software
commons - giving credit (copyright notice/attribution), telling
people what their rights are (the license), the appropriate
distribution of risk (the "as-is" rep and disclaimer of
warranty), and compulsory sharing (copyleft). The balance is
very delicate. It's questionable whether the GPLv3, and then the
AGPL, contribute to the health of the open source software
commons because they are commonly used as the antagonist to
encourage people to get a commercial license instead. It does,
though, seem that lever isn't as successful anymore, since
people are more willing to comply with the copyleft licenses and
these two licenses are more often being used for their intended
benefit. </p>
<p>This, I think, is the piece that's missing from the OSD. We've
seen the OSD gamed when it has been formally met but it is
nevertheless clear that the license is designed to give one
entity superior rights in the software or has mechanisms that
will discourage the use of the software. "Providing software
freedom" as a requirement is a check on that. </p>
</blockquote>
<p>I guess the two issues I have with this are:</p>
<p>1. How does one who is trying to write a license ever know what
to say or not say in their license to satisfy this test? At least
the OSD (and to a certain extent, the FSD) articulate tests
against which one can measure the text and the rights and
obligations of a particular license. There are plenty of people
who believe that non-copyleft makes the ecosystem better off, and
plenty of others that think copyleft does that. I think end the
end, OSI has arrived at the position, via the OSD, that neither
are correct and both models make the ecosystem better off.</p>
<p>2. Specifically, the primary objection to OpenMDW-1.1 seems at
this point to be that it allows termination of the license upon
assertion of a copyright infringement claim against the licensed
work. We already know, I think at this point, that terminating the
patent license part of a license is an appropriate termination
event upon a patent assertion (lots of OSI-approved licenses,
including popular ones, do this), and in at least two examples
(GPLv3 & MPLv2), terminating the copyright license part of the
license is an appropriate termination event upon a patent
assertion. Why isn't *any* litigation against something licensed
open source (except, I suppose, litigation to ensure compliance
with the license itself) something that impinges upon "the ability
to do anything you want with the software"? Getting sued (or even
the threat of being sued) is an impediment to doing what you want
with a licensed work. Whether it be for patent infringement, for
personal injury, for breach of warranty, or even copyright
infringement. In fact, many open source licenses disclaim
warranties of non-infringement. Meaning, you can't sue the
licensor for a work that you received under an open source license
that results in a third party asserting an IP claim against the
work. Why isn't that warranty disclaimer equally problematic?</p>
<p>To my mind, the carve out that is being argued here -- it is only
copyright claims against the licensor by the licensee that it is
impermissible to have the license try to prevent -- seems solely
driven by the perception that: a) AI models are rife with
copyright infringement; b) copyright infringement claims against
those models are inherently meritorious, or at least, ought not be
impeded; c) the calculus that many, many open source licenses make
re patents -- you can sue, or you can continue to use the license,
but not both -- shouldn't equally apply to copyrights; d) AI model
creators are trying to "game the system" in a way that is somehow
more of a risk than the "system gamers" of the past (for example,
the antagonist model you describe above).</p>
<p>At a minimum, it'd be useful to get ourselves down to a point
where we articulate *all* the conditions in this particular
license that are perceived to be anti-software freedom. Seems like
the termination upon copyright assertion is one that seems to be
the main focus at this point, but I'd like to at least understand
if there are any others (such as the definition of the licensed
works, or the "you are solely responsible for" clause). It seems
at this point those might have fallen away as concerns, but I want
to make sure so that when/if this comes up for a Board decision,
all the relevant concerns are discussed.</p>
</body>
</html>