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

Mon Dec 15 16:37:02 UTC 2025

Hi Carlo,

Based on previous discussion, I agree with Pam’s comments and have removed the Output-related content from the definition of “Derivative Materials,” along with incorporating two additional modifications suggested by McCoy. 

I have submitted the updated MG0 and MG-BY licenses in the new thread here: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-December/005945.html

Regarding the proposed copyleft license MG-BY-SA, I intend to withdraw it at this time, as I do not see a clear gap that it would fill in its current form—especially without addressing distillation-related scenarios. I also believe this topic requires more thoughtful discussion, as Josh has raised.

Best,
Moming

> On Dec 15, 2025, at 23:59, Carlo Piana via License-review <license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> 
> [I thought this was sent, but I can't find the message. Sorry for any duplication]
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I agree with Pam. 
> 
> Although we saw an attempt to improve the situation, I find it inappropriate expanding the reach of the licensing conditions and the attempt doesn't quite make the cut.
> 
> As Pam puts it correctly, trying to include attempts to create similar or equivalent functions within copyleft is particularly egregious and should not be allowed IMHO. Only attempts to recreate the same form of expression or the same data -- under the EC Database sui generis rights -- is something we could discuss, but not attempts to reach an equivalent result, that can't work and should be rejected.
> 
> I believe, therefore and likewise, that the two more restrictive licenses do not pass the test.
> 
> Cheers 
> 
> Carlo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Pamela Chestek" - "pamela at chesteklegal.com"
> To: "License submissions for OSI review" - "license-review at lists.opensource.org"
> Reply to: "License submissions for OSI review" - "license-review at lists.opensource.org"
> Sent: Friday, 5 December 2025 at 18:23
> Subject: Re: [License-review] [2nd Resubmission] ModelGo Attribution License, Version 2.0
> I renew my objections to this license and the Attribution-ShareAlike version for the same reasons I objected to the previous version, starting with this email, https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2025-May/005766.html, and as explained further in later emails in the thread. I do not believe that putting conditions on output of a model is workable and, where the output is not a derivative work under copyright law, it violates OSD9, "License Must Not Restrict Other Software."
> 
> The change "Narrows the definition of 'Derivative Materials' by including the phrase: 'in order to replicate, approximate, or otherwise achieve functional behavior that is similar to the Model'" does not address this problem and, in fact, exacerbates it. Output that will "replicate, approximate, or otherwise achieve functional behavior that is similar to the Model" identifies output that is highly likely to not be a derivative work under any stretch of the imagination and therefore is well beyond the acceptable reach for an open source license.
> 
> I do not believe these two versions of the license can be approved.
> 
> Pam
> 
> 
> Pamela S. Chestek
> Chestek Legal
> 4641 Post St.
> Unit 4316
> El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
> +1 919-800-8033
> pamela at chesteklegal.com <mailto:pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> www.chesteklegal.com <http://www.chesteklegal.com/>
> 
> Set a meeting with me <https://calendly.com/pamela-chesteklegal/30min>
> On 12/5/2025 9:04 AM, McCoy Smith wrote:
> I'm going repeat my comments on the MG-0 license here since they are equally applicable to this license (which appears to replicate the text of MG-0, except for the addition of the conditions in 2.2):
> 
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Otherwise, this license seems OK.
> 
> McCoy
> 
> [in my personal capacity and not as a member of the board]
> 
> On 6/18/2025 2:31 AM, Moming Duan wrote:
> Dear OSI Community,
> 
> 
> Following our previous discussions in May, I have made further revisions to the ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0). I am submitting this updated version for OSI review via this email. The license text is attached.
> 
> —————— Major Updates to Previous Submission
> 
> Removes restrictions on model output.
> Revises the termination clause to provide for automatic termination.
> Adds more explicit granting of rights in Section 2.1. 
> Narrows the definition of “Derivative Materials” by including the phrase: “in order to replicate, approximate, or otherwise achieve functional behavior that is similar to the Model.” 
> Removes “Derivative Materials” in Section 5: “Nothing in this License permits You to modify this License as applied to the Licensed Materials.” 
> Fixes typos and formatting issues.
> 
> —————— License Introduction
> 
> License Name: ModelGo Attribution License
> Version:  2.0
> Short Identifier:  MG-BY-2.0
> Copyleft: No
> Legacy or New:  New License
> Drafted By Lawyer:  Yes, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
> Approved or Used by Projects:  No
> 
> License URL: https://ids.nus.edu.sg/modelgo-mg-by.html
> Introduction and Video: https://www.modelgo.li/
> 
> Overview:
> 
> ModelGo Attribution License Version 2.0 (MG-BY-2.0) is a new license designed for publishing models (typically neural networks like Llama2, DeepSeek). It is one of the variants in the ModelGo License family. MG-BY-2.0 is the a permissive license in the ModelGo family, requiring that the original license and attribution be provided when distributing the original Licensed Materials or Derivative Materials (Licensed Materials and Derivative Materials are defined in Clause 1). A statement of modification is required, if applicable.
> (Red content represents the differences from MG0-2.0 license)
> 
> Complies with OSD:
> 
> OSD 3 Derived Works — MG-BY-2.0  Clause 2.1 (a) grants copyright and patent rights to create derivatives.
> OSD 5 and OSD 6 — No discrimination clause is included in MG-BY-2.0.
> OSD 9 License Must Not Restrict Other Software — No such restriction is included in MG-BY-2.0.
> 
> The Gap to Fill:
> Model sharing is very common on the web, with over 1.4 million models currently listed on Hugging Face (https://huggingface.co/models). However, most of these models are not properly licensed. When publishing their models, developers typically choose from three main options (as seen in the model license tags on the Hugging Face website):
> 
> OSS licenses, e.g., Apache-2.0, MIT
> Open responsible AI licenses (OpenRAILs), e.g., CreativeML-OpenRAIL-M, OpenRAIL++
> Proprietary Licenses, e.g., Llama2, Llama3
> 
> However, not all licenses are well-suited for model publishing.
> 
> Why not use OSS licenses? 
> Traditional OSS licenses lack clear definitions regarding machine learning concepts, such as Models, Output, and Derivatives created through knowledge transfer. This ambiguity can result in certain ML activities (e.g., Distillation, Mix-of-Expert) being beyond the control of the model owner.
> 
> Why not use OpenRAILs? 
> Recently, Responsible AI Licenses (https://www.licenses.ai/) have been widely advocated to govern AI technologies, aiming to restrict unlawful and unethical uses of models. While I acknowledge the growing need for such governance, these copyleft-style restrictions do not comply with the OSD and may cause incompatibility with licenses like GPL-3.0. Another concern is that these behavioral restrictions may proliferate within the AI model ecosystem, increasing the risk of license breaches.
> 
> Why not use Llama2 or Llama3 Licenses?
> These licenses are proprietary licenses that are not reusable. Furthermore, they include exclusive terms such as "You will not use the Llama Materials or any output or results of the Llama Materials to improve any other large language model" and copyleft-style behavioral restrictions.
> 
> In fact, the dilemma in current model publishing is the lack of a general-purpose license for model developers. Additionally, since no single license meets diverse model publishing needs, some developers resort to using CC licenses with different elements. However, CC licenses are ill-suited for this purpose as they do not grant patent rights. This motivated the drafting of ModelGo License family, which provides different licensing elements similar to CC but specifically designed for model publishing.
> 
> Comparison with Existing OSI-Approved Licenses:
> Since I could not find an OSI-approved model license, I can only compare MG-BY-2.0 with one similar OSS license — Apache-2.0
> 
> MG-BY-2.0 defines licensed materials and derivative works differently from Apache-2.0, tailoring them to models.
> MG-BY-2.0 can govern the remote access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.
> 
> If further comparisons or supporting evidence are needed to strengthen my claims, please let me know. I am more than willing to engage in further discussions with the OSI community about this license and contribute to promoting standardized model publishing. 🤗
> 
> 
> Best,
> Moming
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________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 opensource.org email address.License-review mailing listLicense-review at lists.opensource.org <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> 
> _______________________________________________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 opensource.org email address.License-review mailing listLicense-review at lists.opensource.org <mailto:License-review at lists.opensource.org>http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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 opensource.org email address.
> 
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20251216/952cc105/attachment-0001.htm>