[License-review] For Approval: OpenMDW License Agreement, versions 1.1 (OpenMDW-1.1)

[Stefano Maffulli]

I continue getting the impression that the OpenMDW review is tainted by 
an ideological bias: Because we don't like big tech and AI now is big 
tech, then we don't like AI therefore we'll do anything to block it. I 
think that AI today is equivalent to big tech only because nobody has 
started a GNU-equivalent (those who claim they did have taken the 
starved-data path which leads inevitably to "sucky AI"). .

The question is if OSI thinks that letting every single tiny copyright 
holder (including the babies) to stop/slow the release of [open weight | 
Open Source AI | Public AI] (pick whatever term you prefer) is the best 
way to promote/defend the open source ecosystem.

It's been clear to me for years that the view (that you seem to support) 
that generative AI is a form of intellectual expropriation will only 
starve the training data commons, limit ai research, stifle open source 
AI developers while doing absolutely nothing to hurt, and instead favor 
the juggernauts OpenAI/Anthropic/Google & co.

The expropriation exists and it's perpetrated by the proprietary models. 
You won't restore a balance without new policies: the answer this time 
is political, not contractual.

Back to the license review:

On 8/27/26 16:36, Rob Landley wrote:
> Under this license, if any of those authors had a day job requiring 
> them to use Claude, participating in the class action lawsuit would 
> have either cost them their job or hurt their employer depending how 
> it was interpreted. 

Why are you bringing up Claude? Anthropic hasn't shared anything about 
the Claude models. If one of Anthropic models was indeed sharing Model 
Materials under the OpenMDW then I know I wouldn't be on the side of the 
large copyright holders (the same way that I was on the barricades 
against RIA/MPAA during the Napster wars that brought us the "lovely" 
freedom-depriving DMCA). BTW, Anthropic solved the issue by buying the 
books, the issue is solved the same way that Google solved it with Books 
years ago.

These examples ad absurdum don't help understand the limits of the license.

/stef