[License-review] [3rd Resubmission] ModelGo Zero License (MG0-2.0) AND ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0)

Moming Duan duanmoming at gmail.com
Tue May 26 06:15:21 UTC 2026 

Hi Pam, Josh, and everyone,


Thanks again for all the feedback over the past year, it's been really helpful.

A quick follow-up on two things


  *
On the review status:

The board minutes from January 16 mentioned that ModelGo licenses were still in discussions. Just wanted to check in, what's the latest major concern about these two licenses? Happy to work on addressing it : )



  *
On Pam's point about Output in the Limitation of Liability:

Just to follow up on that, with AI agents now generating and auto-executing code, the risk around model output has gotten pretty real, so having Output explicitly covered in the disclaimer and limitation of liability seems like a meaningful protection. And I noticed that both Meta (Llama) and Google (Gemma) also mention Output in their warranty disclaimers, which might be for similar reasons. So I'm leaning toward keeping it as is, but happy to hear if others feel differently.


Best,
Moming


From: License-review <license-review-bounces at lists.opensource.org> on behalf of Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
Date: Monday, December 15, 2025 at 20:52
To: license-review at lists.opensource.org <license-review at lists.opensource.org>
Subject: Re: [License-review] [3rd Resubmission] ModelGo Zero License (MG0-2.0) AND ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0)


Hi Moming,

As I read it, there is only one thing that applies to Output, which is in the Limitation of Liability. But does the fact that you mention it in the first place lead to a negative implication that you haven't granted the necessary rights to create Output? With software it's been a fairly bright line that any output isn't subject matter of the license unless it's a derivative work. Here, though, you have created ambiguity about the legal status of the output by mentioning it and also made the license much more complicated.

In my view it's not worth including Output at all in the license. The only liability you might be avoiding is from the person creating the output. The Limitation on Liability won't be a defense to any claims from copyright owners, or those whose loved one harmed themselves because the model encouraged them to do so, or criminal liability. So I don't think it's worth the trade-off, although I wouldn't reject the license for that reason.

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<http://www.chesteklegal.com>


On 12/8/2025 6:57 PM, Moming Duan wrote:
Dear OSI License Review Community,


As suggested, I am starting this new thread to submit the updated MG0-2.0 and MG-BY-2.0 licenses that address the comments from the second resubmission. The major modification is the exclusion of models created through distillation from the definition of Derivative Materials, along with two improvements suggested by McCoy. I have also provided word-diff comparisons with the previous versions. Please feel free to share any comments.


Word-diff:
MG0: https://www.diffchecker.com/f8OumPRF/
MG-BY: https://www.diffchecker.com/jVBWA9WF/





Best,
Moming

—————— License Introduction (MG0-2.0)

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.

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 can govern the remote access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.
  *   MG0-2.0 does not require retaining attribution or stating modifications when redistributing derivatives.


—————— License Introduction (MG-BY-2.0)

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 are defined 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 can govern the remote access (e.g., chatbot) scenario.


_______________________________________________
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<mailto: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/20260526/085cbac7/attachment-0001.htm>

More information about the License-review mailing list