[License-review] ModelGo Zero License, Version 2.0

[Shuji Sado]

Hi Moming-san,

As has already been noted, requiring labels to be placed on the model’s
output may well be interpreted as a usage restriction.

Another point of concern is the expression “non-transferable,
sublicensable.”
While in many instances the “sublicensable” element might offset most of
the limitations that “non-transferable” would impose, this may not
necessarily hold in every jurisdiction. In addition, the phrasing itself
appears ambiguous, raising concerns about legal uncertainty. This clause
could potentially cause complications, for example, when a company or
business is being sold or transferred.


2025/2/14 3:29 Moming Duan <duanmoming at gmail.com>:

> 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 are defined
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Shuji Sado
Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
https://opensource.jp/
https://shujisado.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250215/a0930cc3/attachment-0001.htm>