Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 148, Issue 5

Open source has been blocked from the court...

Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer 
 
  On Thu, Jul 17, 2025 at 4:37 PM, [email protected]<[email protected]> wrote:   Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
    [email protected]

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    [email protected]

You can reach the person managing the list at
    [email protected]

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..."


Today's Topics:

  1. Re: A new kind of badgeware license? (Moming Duan)
  2. [License-Discuss] For Review: New strong copyleft license
      draft with transparency and user rights provisions (BonzuPII)
  3. Re: OpenMDW license (Shuji Sado)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 22:46:49 +0800
From: Moming Duan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] A new kind of badgeware license?
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I agree with Richard and share concerns about the phrase "is used for." For example, if I simply use Kimi to clean a dataset that is then used to train my own model, does that fall within the scope of this term? On another note, what exactly constitutes "derivative works" in the context of this license? And how are "monthly active users" calculated, especially considering the license allows sublicensing? There’s a lot of ambiguity here.

Personally, I’m uncomfortable with the growing trend of modified OSS licenses being adapted for model publishing. It’s creating a quagmire of legal noncompliance.

FYI, there are other "modified MIT License" as well:
GPT-2: https://github.com/openai/gpt-2/blob/master/LICENSE
PuHui OCR: https://huggingface.co/puhuilab/PHOCR/blob/main/LICENSE


Best,
Moming
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250714/18baf0a1/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2025 17:59:12 +0000
From: BonzuPII <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]"
    <[email protected]>
Subject: [License-discuss] [License-Discuss] For Review: New strong
    copyleft license draft with transparency and user rights provisions
Message-ID:
    <ud5vLgb1nWgOT7vR_XVP6Dz3wRl4uJP6E5HEhvUdcD2LF_QMGUzP253yZEXtX3sl0FbzzELz-qO31kjHiNfwTf_1kyWR6BgqUvZ5d6_u2kU=@protonmail.com>
    
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hello friends of the open source community,

Over the past couple of weeks, I have been working to write a new copyleft software license that seeks to address some of the issues I see (and that surely many of us have felt deeply frustrated with) within the open software ecosystem, and the software ecosystem as a whole. As I am not a legal expert, I've had to heavily utilize LLMs in order to come up with a workable first draft, but I am now at the point where collaboration with machines is no longer sufficient and collaboration with human experts is the only viable option for moving forward.

Within the license contains many standard copyleft license provisions heavily inspired by the GNU GPL and aGPL version 3, some of these are likely misworded and need to have loopholes sealed up. Furthermore, I've added provisions enforcing transparency in commercial usage and development of free software, transparency in data collection and data privacy, preventing external ToS and service contracts from restricting the practical exercise of rights afforded by the license, and reciprocity by expanding definitions of derivative works, among other things. Many of these new provisions are experimental with questionable/hypothetical legal enforcibility and OSD compliance. I aim to "bake in" a standard, Immutable ToS/Privacy Policy into the license that entities licensing material under this license must adhere to, however I understand this particular endeavor may pose challenges with OSD compliance, maybe there is a better way to go about this. I may have also mistakenly left out vital standard copyleft provisions as well.

My goal with this license is to create a general purpose, strong copyleft, open source definition compliant, ethical software license that is officially recognized by the Open Source Initiative. If minds sharper than mine could please take a few minutes to review it and suggest/debate revisions, I would be extremely grateful! Anyways, without further ado, here is the license: https://paste.rs/Ccj9k.markdown

For now, it's just a paste dump on pasters, but if any of you would like, I can open up a github or gitlab repo so you can issue "bug" reports, PRs, engage in discussion there, etc..

Anyways, that's all for now! Thank you in advance for taking the time to read my email and review my license, I hope something great will come of this.

- Micah
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250626/026e6150/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2025 08:35:34 +0900
From: Shuji Sado <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OpenMDW license
Message-ID:
    <CAAvo7O4r1AZNPLGxynFiHOFw32BTvmiYS1S58iF0c-Dp0r=3wQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi all,

I seem to have missed Brian's initial email and only just now caught up on
this thread. I'm glad to see this discussion about OpenMDW was already
underway.

Brian, you're right to highlight the due diligence clause. While it's part
of the disclaimer section, it's a clause we don't often see. When I first
looked at this license, this clause also concerned me the most.
However, I ultimately concluded that it likely wouldn't pose a problem for
OSI approval, though I'm not sure how others will see it.
My understanding is that model providers cannot escape the mandatory laws
of each country anyway, and for mere users of a model, the clause serves to
warn them of the general precautions needed when using AI models.

Including my slight concerns about this due diligence clause, I've written
an article that explains the Open Source nature of OpenMDW and addresses
the following questions.
I would be grateful if you all could take a look:
https://shujisado.org/2025/07/14/openmdw-license-review/

- Is there any legal meaning in including trade secrets within the scope of
the grant?
- Will there be any side effects from the scope of the patent clause
extending to indirect infringement?
- Are there any issues with the clause that effectively forces due
diligence for the model onto the user?
- Isn't it inferior to Creative Commons when used as a data license?
- Doesn't it have the potential to encourage openwashing?

Personally, I believe these issues stem from a lack of legal vetting that
comes with OpenMDW's venture into a new domain.
If OpenMDW is formally submitted to the approval process, it will be a good
opportunity for all of us to seriously consider licensing in the AI model
domain.

Also, this is just my personal opinion, but I believe OpenMDW can be a
useful license framework in specific cases, such as those involving
scientific and technical data with patent risks, or where model parameters
and data are interdependent to ensure reproducibility. While I expect the
existing approach of separated licensing, like MIT/Apache-2.0 + CC, will
remain the mainstream, I think OpenMDW can be a useful license option.

2025/7/18 6:07 Steve Winslow <[email protected]>:

> Hi Brian, thanks for raising this -- and Richard, thanks for flagging it
> for us. I'm responding on behalf of the Linux Foundation as the OpenMDW
> license steward. I was involved along with several other internal and
> external participants in drafting OpenMDW-1.0 and its earlier iterations.
>
> We do intend to submit OpenMDW-1.0 to the license-review list to go
> through OSI's review process. We are looking to be able to point to broader
> "use in the wild" before we do so, in case that's helpful as context for
> the community during the review. We're also aiming to be thoughtful about
> how this aligns with OSD / OSAID as well as OSI's processes for reviewing
> AI-related licenses and distribution terms.
>
> We'll plan to follow up (likely in the near future) with an actual
> submission of OpenMDW-1.0 for formal review by the community.
>
> Best,
> Steve
>
> On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 9:13 PM Richard Fontana <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Copying Matt White and Steve Winslow, don't know if they are
>> subscribed to this list.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 20, 2025 at 7:12 PM Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi all,
>> >
>> > Asking about this here, rather than submitting to license-review, as I
>> am
>> > not the license steward, nor am I (any longer) involved in the Linux
>> > Foundation.
>> >
>> > About a month ago, the Linux Foundation released a license applicable to
>> > LLM models called the OpenMDW License:
>> >
>> > https://openmdw.ai/license/
>> >
>> > The website describes this as an "open source" license, yet I see no
>> > attempts (by reviewing the archives of license-discuss and
>> license-review)
>> > by the authors to bring this to OSI for formal approval. Does anyone see
>> > anything in the license that would hinder such approval?
>> >
>> > I'm personally unclear on the problem this solves. The purpose as stated
>> > on the OpenMDW's FAQ reads a bit like "but it goes to 11". It seems like
>> > one could have written a guide to distributing a model with existing
>> > permissive licensing, as typically the purpose of the software is not
>> > really relevant to its licensing.
>> >
>> > It seems to be emphatic about things that don't need stating, like
>> outputs
>> > of the model aren't covered by the license - but nor are "outputs" of
>> gcc
>> > or LibreOffice.
>> >
>> > It also doesn't require, as OSAID did, that the underlying data used to
>> > train the model weights be published. This is "fine" from a
>> > permissive-license POV - I imagine with some digging we can find
>> > permissive-licensed-works that contain binary blobs, and we've long
>> > accepted closed-source binary firmware updates as a part of the Linux
>> > kernel project. So it's still unclear to me that weights couldn't just
>> be
>> > distributed under current permissive licenses.
>> >
>> > The real stand-out portion for me, however, is the second-to-last
>> > paragraph, disclaiming responsibility for any IP rights that may some
>> day
>> > be associated with the weights or other model materials, even if derived
>> > from data not included in the distribution. While the courts have not
>> > ruled decisively on this, you would not see AI companies signing deals
>> > with content companies to scrape their data if there wasn't at least
>> some
>> > OIP risk involved in not doing so. It also seems to ignore that the
>> global
>> > policy train seem heading in the direction of limiting the ability to
>> > disclaim liability in a software license, and that doesn't seem to have
>> > changed under the current US administration. The disclaimer seems
>> > extraneous, compared to current disclaimers in most permissive licenses.
>> > Furthermore to the degree that people rely on that disclaimer, it seems
>> > like it can create novel risks that OSS licenses are supposed to be
>> > mitigating rather than adding to. This is because if presented with a
>> > claim of infringement, there may be no way for the end-user or
>> distributor
>> > to quickly modify the model by modifying the training set and
>> rebuilding.
>> >
>> > But none of these concerns are really about potential violations of the
>> > OSD.
>> >
>> > Therefore, for the sake of clarity, if there isn't anything in this
>> > license that clashes with the OSD, I humbly suggest it should be
>> proposed
>> > by the license steward and considered for approval. That way the use of
>> > the term "open source" on the OpenMDW pages is legitimized, and the AI
>> > community can be reassured that their "unique" needs are being met -
>> even
>> > if OpenMDW is duplicative of existing permissive licenses. Right now I
>> > sense a schism emerging between generations that threatens to sideline
>> OSI
>> > in the minds of developers, and this could be an bridge between the two.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > Brian
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>


-- 
Shuji Sado
Chairman, Open Source Group Japan
https://opensource.jp/
https://shujisado.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20250718/4edf75bd/attachment.htm>

------------------------------

Subject: Digest Footer

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


------------------------------

End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 148, Issue 5
***********************************************

_______________________________________________
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