[License-review] ModelGo Zero License, Version 2.0

[Eric Schultz]

Hi Moming,

Thank you for your submission. I'm no lawyer but after a quick skim of the license I worry that the license may fail OSD 5 and 6 due to the following part:

You shall use, reproduce, Distribute, modify and create derivative works of the Licensed Materials, Derivative Materials (where authorised under this License) and/or Output (where authorised under this License) in compliance with: (i) all applicable laws.

To me, that implies that the usage of licensed works are dependent upon the usage being legal. That's not a requirement that an OSD compliant license can have; additionally, it's unnecessary, the state already enforces those rules, you don't need the license holder to do so as well.

Eric

PS: While the Open Source AI definition says you don't have to include the source data to be an "Open Source AI", I would disagree with that conclusion. But that's my own two cents.
On Wednesday, February 12th, 2025 at 7:26 AM, Moming Duan <duanmoming at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear OSI Community,
>
> I am Moming Duan, a researcher at the National University of Singapore and the submitter and license steward of ModelGo Zero License 2.0, which I am submitting for OSI review through this email. The license TEXT file is attached, and below is a brief overview of this license.
>
> License Name:ModelGo Zero License
> Version: 2.0
> Short Identifier: MG0-2.0
> 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-mg0.html
> Introduction and Video:https://www.modelgo.li/
>
> Overview:
>
> ModelGo Zero License Version 2.0 (MG0-2.0) 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. MG0-2.0 is the most permissive license in the ModelGo family, requiring only that the original license be provided when distributing the original Licensed Materials or Derivative Materials (Licensed Materials and Derivative Materials aredefined in Clause 1.1).
>
> Complies with OSD:
>
> OSD 3 Derived Works — MG0-2.0 Clause 2.1 (a) grants copyright and patent rights to create derivatives.
> OSD 5 and OSD 6 — No discrimination clause is included in MG0-2.0.
> OSD 9 License Must Not Restrict Other Software — No such restriction is included in MG0-2.0.
>
> 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 MG0-2.0 with one similar OSS license — Apache-2.0
>
> - MG0-2.0 defines licensed materials and derivative works differently from Apache-2.0, tailoring them to models.
> - MG0-2.0 Clause 2.4 includes provisions regarding model output.
> - MG0-2.0 Clause 2.2(a) clarifies the ownership of Derivative Materials.
> - MG0-2.0 Clause 7 specifies the governing law.
> - MG0-2.0 Annex A includes a Model Sheet to help users choose and understand the license content.
> - MG0-2.0 can govern the remote access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.
> - MG0-2.0 does not require retaining attribution or stating modifications when redistributing derivatives.
>
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250214/e8054bf3/attachment.htm>