[License-review] [2nd Resubmission] ModelGo Attribution License, Version 2.0

[Moming Duan]

Hi McCoy,


> 1. The disclaimers are not made "conspicuous" as that term is defined in UCC 2-316: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/2/2-316 That has been interpreted as requiring something like ALL CAPS or bold, or a different color, or a box (although the criteria changed in 2022). This isn't necessarily a flaw (whether UCC is relevant to open source licenses is an interesting question) but the practice seems to be that most newer open source licenses try to adhere to this requirement (most by using ALL CAPS since that tends to be the only way to do this with .txt files or ASCII -- which non-lawyers tend to dislike because they interpret it as screaming without understanding why it's done that way).
> 
I guess this may be because our Singapore lawyer didn’t follow it during the initial license drafting. However, I’ve also noticed that the newest model licenses, such as Gemma and Llama 3, follow the practice of using ALL CAPS in disclaimers and limitation of liability. I think using ALL CAPS would make the ModelGo licenses appear more international, so I’ll make the change.

> 2. I find the way the grants are structured sub-optimal in the way that it handles the right of performance under copyright law. Rather than being in the grant, it is subsumed into the definition of "Distribution/Distribute" and then grants a right to Distribute. All rights are granted (which is good, that way you don't have to rely on implied grants) but you do need to dig into the definitions to get there.
> 
Thank you for pointing that out. I will check with legal.

> As to the Attribution version of the license, my only comment is this license requires in Section 2.2(i) that a copy of the license be provided. This is a fairly common provision of many so called "permissive" or non-copyleft licenses although I've always wondered what value this requirement provides, given that this license is intended (I believe) to be non-copyleft.
> 

Yes, it is a non-copyleft license. I think providing the original license is a good common practice, as it helps substream users understand their rights to use these licensed materials.


Best,
Moming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251206/b731202f/attachment.htm>