Re: Pre-Advice for ModelGo Licenses Review

On 2/9/25 23:15, "D 莫名 (dewitt)" wrote:
> 3) Lastly, while I attempted to align MG-BY-OS (where "OS" stands for 
> "Open Source") with OSI’s Open AI definition by requiring that 
> complementary code be licensed under an OSI-approved license, our 
> lawyers opposed this due to concerns about terms incompatibility. 
> Currently, the MG-BY-OS license only mandates open-sourcing the model 
> weights, related code, and scripts (excluding data). I would appreciate 
> any advice on this point.

This feels like exactly the sort of thing we need to hash out as a test 
of the OS AI Definition.  Because, depending on the text, in my personal 
opinion MG-BY-OS *could* be an OSD-compatible model license, even if the 
  rest of the package doesn't meet the full OSAID.  But, this is the 
first time we're deciding any such thing so expect it to take a bit of 
wranging and a bunch of time.

-- 
Josh Berkus

_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.

License-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org