May 2025 license-review summary

General
1

Hi everyone,

We are experimenting with providing a summary of both license-review and license-discuss mailing lists using AI.

Here is a summary of the May 2025 discussions on the OSI license-review mailing list:

1. CDDL 1.1 Proposed as Legacy License

Submitted by: Brian Warner (Fidelity Investments)
Summary:

  • Brian proposed adding Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) 1.1 to OSI’s legacy licenses list.

  • It is largely identical to CDDL 1.0 with minor changes:

    • Oracle named as the license steward instead of Sun.

    • Adds section 6.3, adjusting the patent clause around pre-litigation settlements.

    • Removes “LOST PROFITS” from limitation of liability.

    • Adds California venue choice for legal disputes.

  • Motivation: Completeness and historic use in Java projects.

  • Fedora and SPDX already track this version.

2. WordNet License Legacy Status Discussion

Discussion Between: McCoy Smith and Josh Berkus
Summary:

  • McCoy argued the WordNet license imposes obligations even on internal use, violating “Freedom Zero.”

  • Josh questioned whether requiring license inclusion for internal distribution truly violates Freedom Zero.

  • McCoy responded that even small impositions on internal use may violate that principle, though interpretations vary.

3. The Better Attribution License (BAL)

Submitted by: Lucy Ada Randall
Summary:

  • A simple, copyleft license meant to preserve attribution in cases where version control is not available.

  • Based loosely on the Artistic License.

  • Allows free modification and redistribution but requires source and metadata availability, and attribution.

Responses:

  • Josh Berkus thanked Lucy and linked to prior discussion.

  • McCoy Smith critiqued:

    • Ambiguity in terms like “undue hassle” and “self-perceived optimizations.”

    • The requirement to distribute both original and modified source.

    • Lack of clarity about its necessity over existing licenses.

    • Unclear if it meets submission criteria.

4. ModelGo Licenses (Zero, Attribution, Attribution-OpenSource)

Submitted by: Moming Duan
Context:
A suite of model-specific licenses aimed at addressing gaps in current licensing for AI models.

Licenses Submitted:

  • ModelGo Zero License (MG0-2.0): Very permissive, only requires keeping the license attached.

  • ModelGo Attribution License (MG-BY-2.0): Adds attribution requirement.

  • ModelGo Attribution-OpenSource License (MG-BY-OS-2.0): Adds obligation to release source code.

Rationale:

  • Existing licenses (e.g., Apache 2.0, CC licenses, OpenRAIL, Meta’s licenses) do not adequately address model-specific use cases such as distillation, remote access, and knowledge transfer.

  • Aims to provide clarity and enforceability for model distribution and reuse.

Feedback:

  • Carlo Piana: Still sees conflict with OSD regarding restrictions on use/output.

  • McCoy Smith:

    • Concerned the term “Zero” is misleading if conditions (e.g., license retention) apply.

    • Criticized narrow license grant language that omits full U.S. and international IP rights.

    • Warned that the patent termination clause may be too broad and deter adoption.