<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/1/2026 6:58 AM, Michael Dolan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFV=PSFDwnSER7N3keCgHt9O+dppL2JngCiqo0nc2Ebsm7SPDA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<span
id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-89c8707c-7fff-5c94-27a2-4fe51cd15e01"></span></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFV=PSFDwnSER7N3keCgHt9O+dppL2JngCiqo0nc2Ebsm7SPDA@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span
id="gmail-docs-internal-guid-89c8707c-7fff-5c94-27a2-4fe51cd15e01">
<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. Finally, since several earlier points keep resurfacing as the thread <span
class="Q6ibn ng" style="border-style:none;background:none">grows, and it appears people are not going back to read everything (which is understandable), </span>I thought I\u2019d provide a short summary of our positions as the steward, which we have already stated in this thread. <span
class="Asgive ng"
style="border-style:none;background:none">Perhaps this</span> will help bring this debate to a close:</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) The termination provision does not preclude or waive any claim or remedy, and it is merits-neutral. It presumes nothing about whether any claim, patent or copyright, is valid, and it operates identically either way, as patent retaliation always has. It does not prevent anyone from filing any litigation on any topic. It ends only the claimant's own license to the materials claimed to be infringing upon filing such a lawsuit. Pre-litigation enforcement is also out of scope. The license termination provision puts the parties back into the same position they were in before any license was conveyed.</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) The trigger reaches only claims that the licensed materials themselves infringe, the class of claims that attacks the subject of the grant itself. Broader triggers, such as any IP claim or any lawsuit, were considered and rejected.</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">
</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">(c) Terminating copyright grants as a remedy appears in OSI-approved licenses (e.g., MPL 1.1 §8.2, CDDL 1.1 §6.2, OSL 3.0 §10, CAL-1.0 §5.3), and OSI has approved a trigger broader than patent claims in OCLC-2.0 §5.</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">(d) OpenMDW does not relicense third-party code, and it doesn\u2019t \u201cgrab\u201d third-party code into its scope. The grant conveys only rights the providers hold or can pass through for the materials identified as being provided, and third-party components keep their own licenses and notices. Unlike other licenses, which may have narrower grants, the grant is intended to encompass all possible rights a user of an OpenMDW-license model may need to practice/use the model. This is intentional and designed to overcome potential lack of clarity in other licenses when used in an AI model context. For example, Apache-2.0\u2019s grants are centered on copyright via \u201cthe Work\u201d which is \u201cthe work of authorship\u201d (copyright), and then the patent grant is scoped to \u201cthe Work\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">(e) \u201cModel Materials\u201d is transaction-scoped to the materials provided to you under one agreement. Separate releases are separate agreements, and there is no ever-expanding covered work. The definition's own word "related" bounds the unit of materials concern that keeps coming up. I understand that the OpenMDW is novel in the scope of Model Materials, but honestly, for how many years have we debated \u201cwhat is the Work\u201d under Apache-2.0 or \u201cthe Program\u201d under EPL-1.0 without ever questioning if they satisfy the OSD requirements?</span></p>
<p dir="ltr"
style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><br>
</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">(f) The clearance paragraph is a risk-allocation disclaimer. The license has one affirmative condition, notice retention, and one termination mechanism, the litigation provision. Where this license family intends a condition, it says so expressly. And licenses such as §2(c) of EPL-1.0 and EPL-2.0 show that </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">even if</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"> such risk-allocation terms were an explicit condition of the license grant (which they are not for OpenMDW), an explicit condition would still not conflict 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">(g) We can clarify many of the concerns raised here with FAQ updates stating these interpretations and publishing guidance for model publishers that recommends enumeration of each release's Model Materials.</span></p>
</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
These are all statements of how you believe that the license should
be interpreted. But a number of people have explained how a party or
a court could find ways to construe it differently. As an example,
you say in (f) that "the clearance paragraph is a risk-allocation
disclaimer." But I previously pointed out, and you acknowledged,
that it could be construed as an obligation on the part of the
licensee. You have also acknowledged that some of the content could
be double-licensed with the OpenMDW-1.1 license and the original
third-party license, which is somewhat contrary to how you say the
license operates in (d). So I would take all of these statements as
what your intention was, not how the license actually operates. And
the problem with trying to correct ambiguities with FAQs is that
there is no requirement for a court to consider statements outside
the four corners of the license itself, particularly when the author
of the statements isn't a party to the lawsuit. So you can't count
on FAQs to prevent an unintended interpretation.<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
</body>
</html>