<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)">Hi Yuta,</div><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)">Thank you for taking the time to review the text and dig into the March 2025 history.</div><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)">You have interpreted the text and our intent perfectly. Your understanding is 100% correct: hosted-only access does fall under the definition of "Distribution," but because remote users only receive Output (and not the Licensed or Derivative Materials), Section 2.2(a) does not trigger notice obligations for those end-users.</div><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)">As you noted, removing the Output-notice obligation during the earlier review was a deliberate choice to ensure compliance with the OSD regarding mere use. We also agree with your point regarding service-page wording\u2014if we clarify this further, it will be to outline a path for satisfying existing attribution requirements rather than inventing new ones.</div><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)">Thank you again for the clear and thorough analysis.</div><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)">Best regards,</div><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)">Tyrel</div><div class="gmail-yhAwj" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin:0px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)"></div><hr class="gmail-s6NV4e" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin:32px 0px;border-bottom:0px rgb(128,128,128)"><div class="gmail-yhAwj" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin:0px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)"></div><div class="gmail-AHmQrc" style="font-family:"Google Sans",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;margin:0px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)"><div class="gmail-n6owBd gmail-awi2gc" style="font-size:16px;margin:12px 0px 16px;border-bottom:0px rgb(230,232,240)"></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Sep 5, 2026 at 12:31\u202fPM \u6a2a\u4e95\u96c4\u592a <<a href="mailto:yuta.yokoi.r@gmail.com">yuta.yokoi.r@gmail.com</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"><p>Moming,</p>
<p>Thank you. That resolves the question I was trying to isolate.</p>
<p>I now understand the intended operation of the current text as follows:</p>
<ul>
<li>hosted, API-based, and web-based access is \u201cDistribution\u201d under the definition; but</li>
<li>Section 2.2(a) does not impose license-copy or notice obligations on a hosted-only provider merely because remote access occurs, where the remote user receives only Output and no Licensed Materials or Derivative Materials.</li>
</ul>
<p>So the scope of \u201cDistribution\u201d as a defined term and the circumstances in which the specific Section 2.2(a) obligations have something to attach to are not identical. In the hosted-only case, Output alone does not supply the Licensed Materials or Derivative Materials to which those requirements apply.</p>
<p>The March 2025 review history also makes the result much clearer. In particular, it shows that the absence of an Output-notice obligation in the current text is not simply an accidental omission: such a requirement was considered and removed because of the concern that it would operate as a condition on mere use.</p>
<p>I also understand your service-page point in that same light: if wording of that kind is added, it should describe a way to satisfy attribution where attribution is otherwise required, rather than create a new obligation merely because a user accesses the model remotely.</p>
<p>That gives me a clear operational reading of the current text.</p>
<p>Thank you for the detailed clarification and for pointing me to the earlier review history.</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Yuta Yokoi</p>
_______________________________________________<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>