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

[McCoy Smith]

On 8/30/2026 2:50 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> McCoy, you asked for a definition of "software freedom" and Moming's 
> response is similar to my thoughts:
>
> On 8/29/2026 11:10 PM, Moming Duan wrote:
>>
>> Here is a simple test of my own: *if 99% of the world's models were 
>> released under license X, would our ecosystem be better off?*
>>
> My premise is that the everyone benefits from a software commons, so, 
> does the license encourage or discourage sharing? "Software freedom" 
> is the ability to do anything you want with the software. A few 
> conditions/impairments are allowed because they indirectly encourage 
> the growth of the software commons - giving credit (copyright 
> notice/attribution), telling people what their rights are (the 
> license), the appropriate distribution of risk (the "as-is" rep and 
> disclaimer of warranty), and compulsory sharing (copyleft). The 
> balance is very delicate. It's questionable whether the GPLv3, and 
> then the AGPL, contribute to the health of the open source software 
> commons because they are commonly used as the antagonist to encourage 
> people to get a commercial license instead. It does, though, seem that 
> lever isn't as successful anymore, since people are more willing to 
> comply with the copyleft licenses and these two licenses are more 
> often being used for their intended benefit.
>
> This, I think, is the piece that's missing from the OSD. We've seen 
> the OSD gamed when it has been formally met but it is nevertheless 
> clear that the license is designed to give one entity superior rights 
> in the software or has mechanisms that will discourage the use of the 
> software. "Providing software freedom" as a requirement is a check on 
> that.
>
I guess the two issues I have with this are:

1. How does one who is trying to write a license ever know what to say 
or not say in their license to satisfy this test? At least the OSD (and 
to a certain extent, the FSD) articulate tests against which one can 
measure the text and the rights and obligations of a particular license. 
There are plenty of people who believe that non-copyleft makes the 
ecosystem better off, and plenty of others that think copyleft does 
that. I think end the end, OSI has arrived at the position, via the OSD, 
that neither are correct and both models make the ecosystem better off.

2. Specifically, the primary objection to OpenMDW-1.1 seems at this 
point to be that it allows termination of the license upon assertion of 
a copyright infringement claim against the licensed work. We already 
know, I think at this point, that terminating the patent license part of 
a license is an appropriate termination event upon a patent assertion 
(lots of OSI-approved licenses, including popular ones, do this), and in 
at least two examples (GPLv3 & MPLv2), terminating the copyright license 
part of the license is an appropriate termination event upon a patent 
assertion. Why isn't *any* litigation against something licensed open 
source (except, I suppose, litigation to ensure compliance with the 
license itself) something that impinges upon "the ability to do anything 
you want with the software"? Getting sued (or even the threat of being 
sued) is an impediment to doing what you want with a licensed work. 
Whether it be for patent infringement, for personal injury, for breach 
of warranty, or even copyright infringement. In fact, many open source 
licenses disclaim warranties of non-infringement. Meaning, you can't sue 
the licensor for a work that you received under an open source license 
that results in a third party asserting an IP claim against the work. 
Why isn't that warranty disclaimer equally problematic?

To my mind, the carve out that is being argued here -- it is only 
copyright claims against the licensor by the licensee that it is 
impermissible to have the license try to prevent -- seems solely driven 
by the perception that: a) AI models are rife with copyright 
infringement; b) copyright infringement claims against those models are 
inherently meritorious, or at least, ought not be impeded; c) the 
calculus that many, many open source licenses make re patents -- you can 
sue, or you can continue to use the license, but not both -- shouldn't 
equally apply to copyrights; d) AI model creators are trying to "game 
the system" in a way that is somehow more of a risk than the "system 
gamers" of the past (for example, the antagonist model you describe above).

At a minimum, it'd be useful to get ourselves down to a point where we 
articulate *all* the conditions in this particular license that are 
perceived to be anti-software freedom. Seems like the termination upon 
copyright assertion is one that seems to be the main focus at this 
point, but I'd like to at least understand if there are any others (such 
as the definition of the licensed works, or the "you are solely 
responsible for" clause). It seems at this point those might have fallen 
away as concerns, but I want to make sure so that when/if this comes up 
for a Board decision, all the relevant concerns are discussed.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20260830/467034fc/attachment-0001.htm>