<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br>Mike-san, one point of clarification on your summary in 7(b). I realized that I may have been reading one part of Section 5 too narrowly. When the license says that the Model Materials \u201cdirectly or indirectly infringe\u201d copyright, what exactly is intended by \u201cindirectly\u201d?<br><br>In copyright law, indirect infringement ordinarily makes me think of secondary liability such as contributory or vicarious infringement, which is generally liability of a person or entity rather than something that the material itself \u201cdoes.\u201d Is \u201cindirectly\u201d intended to cover a claim that use or distribution of the Model Materials induces or contributes to third-party infringement, or is it intended more broadly, for example to reach claims based on infringement occurring during the training process?</div><div><br></div>Shuji<br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">2026/9/1 23:00 Michael Dolan <<a href="mailto:mdolan@linuxfoundation.org">mdolan@linuxfoundation.org</a>>:<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="ltr"><div><span id="m_-2547293162356724005gmail-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">A few points raised since Friday were new, so I will share my view on those in case it helps <span style="border-style:none;background:none">everyone's understanding.</span> It\u2019s challenging to keep up with all the points raised and comments. I will then summarize our position regarding the more contentious points and areas of confusion that resurface throughout this thread. </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">1. "Voluntarily participate" (Richard's point).</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">Richard, you are correct in tracing this to the patent non-assert language from the Microsoft promises through OWFa 1.0, whose agreements we use today across a number of specification communities. For example, the Open Container Initiative releases specifications under the OWFa 1.0 patent-only variant alongside Apache-2.0, and GraphQL is licensed under OWFa. The phrase does specific, narrow work. "File or maintain" alone would invite an obvious dodge: fund, direct, join, or control litigation nominally brought by someone else. The word "voluntarily" excludes compelled participation. A subpoenaed witness, a deposed employee, a juror, and a party joined involuntarily do not voluntarily participate. I can only confirm our intent in OpenMDW. David Rudin, who chimed in earlier on this thread, was part of drafting the OWFa (and maybe also the Microsoft promises). I'll defer to him on the OWFa's intent - we weren\u2019t involved in that drafting work.</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">2. "Corresponding lawsuit" (Richard and John).</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">The termination provision targets voluntary first aggression, so a party who was sued first does not lose its license by responding, whether by counterclaim, cross-claim, or a separately filed responsive action. "Lawsuit" rather than "counterclaim" is deliberate. Responsive claims sometimes must be brought as separate actions, in a different forum or a declaratory posture, and the exception should not turn on civil procedure. "Corresponding" ties the responsive suit to the litigation first brought against you. Without it, any unrelated suit anyone had ever filed against a party would immunize that party's later aggression indefinitely. I would also note that compulsory counterclaim rules in some jurisdictions require a defendant to assert related claims or lose them. The exception ensures the license never forces a choice between complying with those rules and keeping the license. So Richard is right that it does not require the two suits to share underlying subject matter, and it is not merely "another": it means responsive to the action first brought against you.</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">3. Use in litigation. (Kevin\u2019s points)</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">Kevin, regarding your concern about retained experts and counsel and access in litigation, I had a couple of reactions. First, termination operates only as of filing or participation, so all pre-suit investigation and testing happens under a full license. Second, use as evidence after filing does not depend on the license. </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">Use for <span style="border-style:none;background:none">purposes of </span>judicial proceedings is protected independent of any license, in the US as fair use, and analysis of accused materials proceeds through discovery. This isn\u2019t just a license steward\u2019s claim; see, e.g., Bond v. Blum, 317 F.3d 385, 392-397 (4th Cir. 2003) (finding fair use of copyrighted materials when used as evidence in a court proceeding), and I\u2019m sure dozens of other cases <span style="border-style:none;background:none">out there.</span></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">I\u2019ll point out that the same situation would apply, for example, for a case relating to software under MPL-2.0 where a plaintiff brings both patent and copyright claims (the Oracle v. Google litigation is an example where both types of claims were brought together, albeit not for MPL-2.0-licensed software). Section 5.2 of MPL-2.0 would terminate </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">all</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"> license grants (both patent and copyright) due to the patent claim. The plaintiff would presumably have to investigate their copyright claims using mechanisms other than an explicit license grant under MPL-2.0. </span><span style="background-color:transparent;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;white-space:pre-wrap">I can't claim to know how that would work outside the </span><span style="background:none;outline:none;border-bottom:2px rgb(50,113,234);color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;white-space:pre-wrap;border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-left-style:none">U.</span><span style="background-color:transparent;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;white-space:pre-wrap">S., but at least in the U.S.<span style="border-style:none;background:none">, </span></span><span style="background:none;outline:none;border-bottom:2px rgb(50,113,234);color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;white-space:pre-wrap;border-top-style:none;border-right-style:none;border-left-style:none">we</span><span style="background-color:transparent;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-family:Arial,sans-serif;white-space:pre-wrap"> have other avenues than the license grant.</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">4. The API and RAG hypo (Moming's point).</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">Moming, I don't think your hypothetical works as stated under the definition of Model Materials. Model Materials means the materials "provided to you" under the agreement. A provider's server-side store of user inputs is never provided to the user and is therefore not part of any user's Model Materials. A user of a hosted API typically receives no Model Materials at all and needs no copyright license to use a hosted service; the provider's terms of service govern that relationship, not this license. A claim that a provider is misusing your inputs is a claim about the provider's conduct, not a claim that materials provided to you infringe. I do not see how OpenMDW would apply in this scenario, as that conduct likely falls under their terms of use or service agreement.</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">5. Downstream recipients (Carlo, in response to your point (a)).</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">Yes, the definition and grant are per recipient. Each recipient's license runs directly from the providers under that recipient's own agreement, not through a chain from an intermediate distributor, and termination reaches only the rights and grants made to the litigant. A downstream recipient who is not a participant in the litigation holds their own grant and is unaffected.</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">I would note again that OpenMDW licenses are already in use in the field, and many licensors have published model materials under them. I accept your point that it could be clearer, but I'm also not aware of any perfectly drafted open source license\u2026 so I'll request a similarly fair evaluation as other licenses in use, warts and all. :-)</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">6. On the software freedom subthread, I'll stay out of the definitional debate, but Luis, your reframing toward the health of the software commons resonates with me. That is the test this license was built for: moving model publishers from bespoke restrictive terms into the commons. I couldn\u2019t justify to a business decision-maker that they couldn\u2019t use OpenMDW-1.1 licensed models because of the arguments playing out in this thread. At some point in the analysis, this thread has gone to a strange place.</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">7. Finally, since several earlier points keep resurfacing as the thread <span 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 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"><br></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><br><p dir="ltr" style="line-height:1.38;margin-top:0pt;margin-bottom:0pt"><br></p></span></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="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: <a href="tel:(440)%20552-5322" value="+14405525322" target="_blank">+1.440.552.5322</a><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"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Tue, Sep 1, 2026 at 1:19\u202fAM Luis Villa <<a href="mailto:luis@lu.is" 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 dir="ltr"><div dir="auto">On Sun, Aug 30, 2026 at 2:51\u202fPM Pamela Chestek <<a href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com" target="_blank">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><div dir="auto"><div class="gmail_quote"><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>
<div>McCoy, you asked for a definition of
"software freedom" and Moming's response is similar to my
thoughts:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>On 8/29/2026 11:10 PM, Moming Duan
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<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 style="font-family:-apple-system,"Segoe UI",Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif">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? </p></div></blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div><p dir="auto">"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></div></blockquote><div><span style="background-color:transparent">FWIW any or all of Pam's formulations of "encouraging sharing of software" or "contributing to the health of the software commons" or "protecting the open software ecosystem" (from an <a href="http://opensource.com" target="_blank">opensource.com</a> essay of yours, Pam, IIRC) would be vastly superior to "providing software freedom". <br><br>Besides the obvious point that software doesn't have freedom, any of those would be much clearer to argue about, with less baggage. (There would still be plenty of arguing; all of those still require value judgments. But at least it'd be a value that one can attempt to decipher from the words.)</span></div></div></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>
_______________________________________________<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><div><br clear="all"></div><div><br></div><span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>Shuji Sado</div><div>Chairman, Open Source Group Japan<br><a href="https://opensource.jp/" target="_blank">https://opensource.jp/</a><br>English blog: <a href="https://shujisado.org/" target="_blank">https://shujisado.org/</a></div><div>Japanese blog: <a href="https://shujisado.com/" target="_blank">https://shujisado.com/</a></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>