[License-review] Output derivatives clause

[Pamela Chestek]

On 12/28/2025 5:32 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 12/15/25 9:19 AM, Moming Duan wrote:
>> That said, I remain focused on this issue and will continue to 
>> explore whether there is a valid case for MG-BY-SA as a proprietary 
>> model license rather than an open source one. My concern is that, in 
>> the worst case, large-scale distillation could reduce the willingness 
>> of organizations to release open models such as Qwen (under 
>> Apache-2.0), pushing them instead toward proprietary service 
>> agreements that explicitly prohibit behaviors like distillation. The 
>> reverse is also possible, as some models, like DeepSeek and Qwen, 
>> have relicensed from custom licenses to OSI-approved licenses.
>
> Please do!  This is a very important question for the OSS licensing of 
> models.  It may turn out that it's impossible because of the 
> limitations of copyright on model output, but if so, let's figure that 
> out definitively.
>
Let me chime in that, although the end result may not have been what you 
expected at the beginning of the process, it was a very valuable 
exercise that helped everyone think through some of the angles. I want 
to thank you for your dedication to the effort and your willingness to 
listen and respond to the comments you received.

Pam


Pamela S. Chestek
Chestek Legal
4641 Post St.
Unit 4316
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
+1 919-800-8033
pamela at chesteklegal
www.chesteklegal.com