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

Thu May 15 04:21:04 UTC 2025

I tend to disagree with the notion that they all have to be enumerated, 
particularly where there aren't separate grants of copyright and patent 
licenses. It's a double-edged sword -- when you enumerate, then you risk 
failing to grant rights under some regime that has different 
enumerations. Yes, more interpretation is required, but an argument that 
some rights weren't granted would be so contrary to the current 
understanding of open source that I am not too concerned about it.

I agree on the patent termination - isn't there at least one license 
that does include derivative works though?

Pam

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

On 5/14/2025 2:06 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
>
> On this one, I'm going to reiterate some of my comments on the MG0 
> license, as they apply here equally (since the language is the same):
>
> In terms of drafting, I dislike the articulation of the license grant 
> here as it uses various license permissions in a way that is 
> inconsistent with the rights the various intellectual property regimes 
> articulate them, but more importantly, leaves out quite a number of 
> them. This is in part the fault of using older licenses (BSD, I think) 
> as a starting model.
>
> In the USA, the copyright permissions are: reproduce, distribute, 
> prepare derivative works, display
>
> Outside of the USA, the patent permissions are (via Berne): reproduce, 
> broadcast, communicate, adapt, arrange, recite, translate
>
> In the USA, the patent permissions are: make, use, sell, offer for 
> sale, import.
>
> Outside of the USA, the patent permissions are similar in scope, but 
> sometimes use dispose or other language rather than the above.
>
> This license only grants the following rights under both copyright and 
> patent:   use, reproduce, distribute. and "use the Licensed Materials 
> to create Derivative Materials."  That means it leaves out 5 of the 6 
> enumerated patent rights in the USA. I think that newer licenses ought 
> to be more rigorous in the way they articulate their permissions lest 
> a court (or a licensor) argue that certain rights were reserved or not 
> granted (such as, for example, the right to sell, offer for sale, or 
> import the software under patents. I understand there are precedents 
> from prior licenses (BSD is the best example) for not fully 
> articulating all of these rights, but I think that precedent shouldn't 
> be used to allow for incompletely written licenses now.
>
> Finally, the termination provision for patent assertions applies to 
> Derivative Works. There's a long-standing debate about whether that 
> sort of termination is overbroad, particularly as it prevents the 
> assertion of patents against downstream modifiers of the upstream 
> licensor's patents covering subsequent modification out of the control 
> of the licensor. One of the reasons why the newer, popular licenses 
> articulate their defensive termination/suspension clauses more 
> narrowly than this is because of the concern that patent holders would 
> be reluctant to grant an open-ended patent license to downstream 
> licensees. I don't think that's an OSD violation, but it is an issue 
> as to whether a license of this scope would gain significant uptake at 
> least from patent holders.
>
>
> On 3/22/2025 7:53 PM, Moming Duan wrote:
>> Dear OSI Community,
>>
>>
>> Based on previous discussions and comments, I have revised the 
>> ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0) with the assistance of law 
>> students. I am submitting this revised license for OSI review via 
>> this email. The license text file is attached below.
>>
>> —————— Major Updates to Previous Submission
>>
>> # Add conditions for distributing outputs as a dataset.
>> # Remove the *"Third-Party Material"* and *"Governing Law and Dispute 
>> Resolution"* sections.
>> # Remove the annex.
>> # Eliminate redundant clauses from the license.
>> # Clarify definitions of *“Distribution",**“Licensor",**"Licensed 
>> Materials”,* and *"Output”.*
>> # Remove definitions of *"License"* and *"Open Source Software”.*
>> # Refine license clauses based on feedback from the previous round of 
>> OSI review.
>>
>> —————— 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 aredefined 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 Clause 2.2(b) includes provisions regarding model output.
>> # 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 list
>> 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/20250514/621215ea/attachment-0001.htm>