[License-review] Please review revised ModelGo licenses

Sat May 17 21:51:28 UTC 2025

Hi Moming,

I realize you're not trying to impose any license on the use, but you 
are imposing a obligation that runs with the output, which has never 
been acceptable in an open source license. I also realize that this is 
new territory, and just because it wasn't done for software doesn't mean 
it can't be done for model output, but it is something that needs to be 
thoughtfully considered.

What is the justification for it? Why is attribution to the original 
model something important enough that it has to be said? Is it because 
so much work went into training the model? The attribution for software 
is, I suspect, a nod to the concept of attribution of authors in 
copyrighted works that exists in some countries. But is that rationale 
appropriate for models, where there is likely no copyrightable 
authorship in the output?

I am most concerned about the implications for individual works. As I 
mentioned in my original email, the words "collection" and "dataset" 
suggest your intention may have been to limit the duty to downstream 
models, not generated works, but that is not at all clear in the 
license.  If I generate a single artistic work from a model under this 
license, do I have to provide attribution information on my Output? 
Caution would suggest that is the case, which I think is quite problematic.

I am troubled by your statement:

> I recognize that attribution information may be lost over several 
> generations—just as licensing information is often lost when data is 
> crawled from the web and later used to train models. However, it would 
> be unreasonable to respond to this challenge by altering data licenses 
> to allow unrestricted reuse and removal of attribution simply for the 
> sake of convenience or ease of crawling.
Licensing information /shouldn't/ be lost in the licensing of software, 
and a great deal of effort goes into making sure that it isn't. To say 
that "oh, we know that you'll be out of compliance with the license at 
some point and we're cool with that" isn't how contracts do or should 
work. Most people try to abide by their legal obligations and will try 
to comply, so they will be heavily burdened by this requirement  because 
it will be impossible to figure out after only a generation or two. And 
you may be cool with it, but it is a way for someone less forgiving than 
you to opportunistically claim a breach of the license, putting users at 
risk of expensive lawsuits.

So this obligation puts a lot of burden on users, and I am looking for a 
reason why it's justified.

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 5/15/2025 7:14 AM, Moming Duan wrote:
> Hi Pam,
>
>
> ModelGo Licenses (MG-0, MG-BY, and MG-BY-OS) clearly grant the right 
> to create Derivative Materials, including new models developed via 
> techniques such as distillation. As stated in Section 2.2(b), 
> attribution is not required for internal use of generated content; the 
> obligation only applies when generated datasets are Distributed.
> This is a lightweight, attribution-style requirement that is easy to 
> comply with, for example, by including proper credit in the dataset 
> README, as commonly seen on: https://huggingface.co/datasets
> Importantly, this does not mean that the generated dataset must adopt 
> the same license as the original model.
> I recognize that attribution information may be lost over several 
> generations—just as licensing information is often lost when data is 
> crawled from the web and later used to train models. However, it would 
> be unreasonable to respond to this challenge by altering data licenses 
> to allow unrestricted reuse and removal of attribution simply for the 
> sake of convenience or ease of crawling.
>
> Even though the question of who owns generated content remains a legal 
> issue yet to be fully resolved. But if model-generated content (at 
> least when collected in significant quantities) didn’t contain 
> knowledge or reasoning patternsakin to “source code,” why would there 
> be such widespread enthusiasm for model distillation? We don’t see 
> people transferring knowledge from books they wrote in Word 
> into TEXTwith the same motivation. A more fitting analogy is users 
> copying code from one repository to another—that, to me, better 
> captures what’s happening. This is my personal opinion.
>
>
> Best,
> Moming
>
>
>
>> On 15 May 2025, at 11:38 AM, Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> This appears to be an attempt at making it a restriction for 
>> distillation or synthetic data generation, not, for example, an 
>> individual work ("a /*collection */of Output /*as a dataset*/"), and 
>> I don't doubt that it's well-intended, but I agree that the 
>> limitation on Output is inconsistent with open source principles.  It 
>> also seems unworkable as the original Output is further reused 
>> downstream. How would one know if the original Output is still there 
>> several generations later?
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> On 5/14/2025 7:09 AM, Carlo Piana wrote:
>>> Josh,
>>>
>>> sorry for long silence.
>>>
>>> I think that the new version of the ModelGo license does not seem to addres=
>>> s the concern I have expressed against it, following up on your own comment=
>>>   on output (now in 2.bb). I think that imposing anything on the output of t=
>>> he model is against the OSD as it is a restriction on the use of the licens=
>>> ed subject matter.
>>>
>>> So no, I am confused at how this new text should be addressing the above co=
>>> ncern.
>>>
>>> In a separate thread I have expressed perplexity on certain clauses, these =
>>> seem to have been removed, so no issue on that end.
>>>
>>> This applies to the updated versions.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Carlo
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Messaggio originale -----
>>>> Da: "Josh Berkus"<josh.berkus at opensource.org>
>>>> A: "License submissions for OSI review" <license-review at lists.opensource.=
>>> org>
>>>> Inviato: Marted=C3=AC, 15 aprile 2025 1:46:45
>>>> Oggetto: [License-review] Please review revised ModelGo licenses
>>>> Carlo, Pam, Eric, Shuji,
>>>> =20
>>>> Moming has re-submitted revised versions of his licenses based on your
>>>> feedback.  Please check them when you can and make sure that your
>>>> concerns about the licenses have been addressed.
>>>> =20
>>>> --
>>>> -- Josh Berkus
>>>> OSI Board Member
>>>> =20
>>>> =20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not nece=
>>> ssarily
>>>> those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source
>>>> Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>>>> =20
>>>> License-review mailing list
>>>> License-review at lists.opensource.org
>>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensou=
>>> rce.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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20250517/70e1703a/attachment-0001.htm>