[License-discuss] [SUBMISSION] AI-MIT License 1.0 — permissive license for AI-generated code

Tue Mar 17 19:40:11 UTC 2026

Nik:
Please clarify if you want to have a discussion on this license prior to 
submission, or if you are submitting it for approval. If the former, 
then it the will be withdrawn from the approval process. If the latter, 
then you'll need to provide all the information required for license 
approval for this license.

On 3/13/2026 12:05 PM, Nik wrote:
> Apologize, my mistake. I'm new to mailing lists and sent this to both 
> addresses.
> This proposal is currently up for discussion, and if the community 
> agrees, the final text can be submitted for review and registration 
> after discussion, as I understand it.
>
> Nik
>
> пт, 13 мар. 2026 г. в 18:32, Pamela Chestek 
> <pamela.chestek at opensource.org>:
>
>     McCoy, I also have an email where it was submitted to
>     license-review on 3/12/26 at 5:30 pm PT?
>
>     Pam
>
>     On 3/13/2026 9:10 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>>
>>     Nik:
>>
>>     Are you requesting approval of this license by OSI, or just
>>     discussion of the license? You've submitted to the
>>     license-discuss list, which is where licenses are discussed, but
>>     does not result in the license being put through the approval
>>     process. Your statement that you are "submitting" the license
>>     "for consideration" is ambiguous.
>>
>>     If you are seeking approval, you need to use the correct mailing
>>     list and provide all the data required for a submission, which
>>     has not been done in your e-mail below.
>>
>>     On 3/12/2026 4:20 AM, Nik wrote:
>>>     Dear OSI License Review Committee,
>>>
>>>     I am submitting the **AI-MIT License, Version 1.0** for
>>>     consideration by the Open Source Initiative.
>>>
>>>     ## Summary
>>>
>>>     The AI-MIT License is a permissive open-source license designed
>>>     to address a genuine gap: existing licenses were written for
>>>     human authors and handle AI-generated code poorly, creating
>>>     false implications about authorship and copyright status.
>>>
>>>     The license is deliberately minimal — it preserves the structure
>>>     and permissiveness of the MIT License while adding three
>>>     targeted changes for the AI context.
>>>
>>>     ## The problem it solves
>>>
>>>     1. **False authorship implication.** When `Copyright (c) [year]
>>>     [author]` is applied to fully AI-generated code, it implies
>>>     human authorship and copyright that may not legally exist in
>>>     most jurisdictions.
>>>
>>>     2. **No standard for disclosure.** There is no widely adopted
>>>     mechanism for disclosing whether code is AI-generated,
>>>     AI-assisted, or human-authored. This matters for supply-chain
>>>     security, regulatory compliance (EU AI Act), and intellectual
>>>     honesty in open source.
>>>
>>>     3. **Undefined copyright status.** Fully autonomous AI-generated
>>>     code (no human creative input) is in a legal grey zone in most
>>>     jurisdictions. A license that claims copyright over it is at
>>>     best misleading, at worst invalid.
>>>
>>>     ## What the license does differently from MIT
>>>
>>>     The license adds one structural element (the Authorship
>>>     Declaration) and three conditions/clauses:
>>>
>>>     **Authorship Declaration** — a required checkbox at the top of
>>>     the LICENSE file with three modes:
>>>     - *Fully AI-generated*: no copyright claimed; code dedicated to
>>>     public domain
>>>     - *AI-assisted*: human-directed, AI-generated; standard
>>>     copyright applies
>>>     - *Human-authored*: AI used as a tool only; identical to MIT posture
>>>
>>>     **Condition 2 — Transparency**: redistribution or use as AI
>>>     training data must not misrepresent AI origin as human authorship.
>>>
>>>     **Condition 3 — No Copyright Claim**: for fully autonomous code,
>>>     explicit public domain dedication (with a perpetual irrevocable
>>>     fallback for jurisdictions where public domain dedication is
>>>     impossible).
>>>
>>>     **Extended disclaimer**: adds three AI-specific disclaimers
>>>     about training data provenance, regulatory compliance, and
>>>     jurisdictional limitations of the authorship declaration.
>>>
>>>     ## OSD compliance analysis
>>>
>>>     1. **Free Redistribution** ✓ — no restriction on sale or
>>>     distribution
>>>     2. **Source Code** ✓ — no source restriction
>>>     3. **Derived Works** ✓ — modification and redistribution permitted
>>>     4. **Integrity of the Author's Source Code** ✓ — no patch-file
>>>     requirement; attribution preserved
>>>     5. **No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups** ✓
>>>     6. **No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor** ✓
>>>     7. **Distribution of License** ✓ — same rights apply to all
>>>     recipients
>>>     8. **License Must Not Be Specific to a Product** ✓
>>>     9. **License Must Not Restrict Other Software** ✓
>>>     10. **License Must Be Technology-Neutral** ✓
>>>
>>>     The Transparency condition (Condition 2) requires disclosure of
>>>     AI origin but does not restrict use in any field — it is an
>>>     attribution/honesty requirement, not a field-of-endeavor
>>>     restriction.
>>>
>>>     ## SPDX identifier
>>>
>>>     We are concurrently requesting the SPDX identifier `AI-MIT-1.0`
>>>     through the SPDX GitHub repository.
>>>
>>>     ## Repository
>>>
>>>     The full license text, README, translations, and supporting
>>>     materials are available at:
>>>     https://github.com/ai-mit-license/ai-mit-license
>>>
>>>     ## A note on meta-context
>>>
>>>     This license was initially drafted with AI assistance (Claude,
>>>     Anthropic) at the direction of a human. We believe this is
>>>     appropriate and have disclosed it in the repository. The license
>>>     is itself an example of the category of work it governs.
>>>
>>>     We welcome feedback from the committee and the community at large.
>>>
>>>     Respectfully,
>>>     Nik
>>>
>>>     _______________________________________________
>>>     The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from anopensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>>>
>>>     License-discuss mailing list
>>>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from anopensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>>
>>     License-discuss mailing list
>>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and
>     not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official
>     statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an
>     opensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>
>     License-discuss mailing list
>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260317/69bd4e50/attachment.htm>