Why Does Open Source Licensing Matter for AI?
Open source AI models are proliferating as companies and researchers release models, weights, and architectures publicly. Projects like Meta’s Llama, Mistral AI, Stability AI’s models, and numerous Hugging Face repositories provide accessible AI capabilities driving innovation and democratizing technology.
However, open source AI creates complex licensing questions distinct from traditional software because AI models include code, trained weights, training data, and documentation, each potentially subject to different licenses and rights. Companies using or contributing to open source AI must understand copyleft obligations and viral licensing, permissive license freedoms and limitations, compatibility issues when combining licenses, and attribution and notice requirements.
Failure to comply with open source licenses creates significant legal risks including license violations and injunctions, loss of license rights requiring product withdrawal, copyright infringement liability, and reputational damage in developer communities.
Open Source License Fundamentals
Copyleft vs. Permissive Licenses
Open source licenses fall into two broad categories. Copyleft licenses like GPL require derivative works to be distributed under the same license, creating viral effect. Permissive licenses like MIT, Apache, and BSD allow proprietary derivatives with minimal restrictions, generally requiring only attribution.
For AI, license choice dramatically affects commercialization options.
Key License Families
Major open source license families relevant to AI include GPL family with strong copyleft, LGPL allowing proprietary linking with copyleft libraries, Apache 2.0 providing permissive terms with patent grants, MIT and BSD licenses offering minimal restrictions, and Creative Commons for non-software content like training data.
License Compatibility
Not all licenses are compatible for combining into single works. GPL code cannot be combined with Apache 2.0 code in some scenarios. Understanding compatibility is critical when using multiple open source components.
GPL and Copyleft for AI
GPL Requirements
GNU General Public License requires distributing source code when distributing binaries, licensing derivatives under GPL, providing copyright and license notices, and not imposing additional restrictions.
GPL’s strong copyleft means proprietary improvements cannot be distributed without releasing source.
What Constitutes Distribution
GPL is triggered by distribution or conveyance to third parties. Merely using GPL software internally doesn’t trigger obligations. However, providing GPL-based services to customers may or may not constitute distribution depending on how services are delivered.
For AI models, downloading models to users likely constitutes distribution.
GPL and AI Model Weights
Controversy exists over whether GPL applies to trained model weights. Some argue weights are data not covered by GPL, while others contend weights are derivative works of GPL training code.
This remains unsettled legally, creating risks for commercial AI.
AGPL and Network Use
Affero GPL closes the “SaaS loophole” by treating network access as distribution. If AGPL AI models are provided via API or web interface, source code must be offered to users.
AGPL significantly restricts commercial models.
Permissive Licenses for AI
Apache License 2.0
Apache 2.0 is popular for AI projects because it allows commercial use and proprietary derivatives, includes express patent grants from contributors, provides trademark use restrictions, and requires attribution and license notices.
Apache-licensed AI models can be improved and commercialized without releasing modifications.
MIT and BSD Licenses
MIT and BSD licenses are extremely permissive, requiring only attribution and inclusion of license text. They allow almost unlimited use including proprietary commercialization, sublicensing, and modification without disclosure.
However, they lack express patent grants, creating some patent risk.
Practical Considerations
Permissive licenses enable building commercial AI products on open source foundations. Companies can integrate permissively licensed models, fine-tune without releasing weights, and deploy as proprietary services.
However, attribution requirements still apply.
AI-Specific Licenses
Llama Licenses
Meta’s Llama models use custom licenses restricting certain uses. Early Llama licenses prohibited commercial use by large companies. Later Llama 2 and Llama 3 licenses are more permissive but still include restrictions on use for improving other models and requirements for Meta branding in derivatives.
These custom licenses create compliance complexity.
Responsible AI Licenses
Some projects adopt “Responsible AI Licenses” prohibiting harmful uses such as surveillance, discrimination, or misinformation generation. These ethical-use restrictions aim to prevent misuse but may not be enforceable like traditional open source licenses.
Open RAIL Licenses
Open Responsible AI Licenses combine permissive use with use restrictions and behavioral constraints. They allow commercial use while prohibiting specific harmful applications.
Training Data Licensing
Dataset Licenses
Training datasets have separate licenses from model code including Creative Commons for text, images, or general data, Open Data Commons for databases, and custom dataset licenses with use restrictions.
Understanding training data licenses is critical for lawful model training.
License Compatibility for Training
Training models on data licensed under restrictive terms may constrain what can be done with resulting models. For example, training on ShareAlike data may require models be shared under similar terms.
Fair Use and Training
Companies often rely on fair use to train on copyrighted data without licenses. However, this remains legally contested. Open source AI should ideally use data with clear licensing.
Model Weight Licensing
Are Weights Copyrightable
Legal uncertainty exists over whether trained model weights constitute copyrightable works. Weights are numerical parameters resulting from training algorithms on data. They may be considered data rather than creative expression, potentially outside copyright scope.
However, the selection, training process, and architecture combined with weights might constitute copyrightable work.
Licensing Weights Explicitly
Given uncertainty, open source AI projects should explicitly license weights through clear license statements, specification of what license applies to weights versus code, and consistent treatment throughout project.
Derivative Weights
When fine-tuning open source models, clarify license obligations for derivative weights. Some licenses may require sharing fine-tuned weights while others allow proprietary derivatives.
Compliance Requirements
Attribution and Notice
All open source licenses require attribution. For AI models, provide license text and copyright notices with distributed models, attribution in documentation and user interfaces, and preservation of original licenses when modifying.
Source Code Availability
Copyleft licenses require making source code available. For AI, this includes training scripts and code, model architectures and configurations, and preprocessing pipelines.
Permissive licenses don’t require source disclosure but mandate including original license.
Patent Considerations
Apache 2.0 includes patent grants protecting users from patent claims by contributors. MIT and BSD lack express patent provisions, creating some risk.
Using models under licenses with patent grants provides stronger protection.
License Violations and Remedies
Consequences of Violations
Violating open source licenses results in automatic license termination losing all rights under the license, copyright infringement liability, injunctions preventing product distribution, and damages including profits from infringement.
Curing Violations
Some licenses like GPLv3 allow curing violations by ceasing violations promptly and implementing corrective measures.
However, cure provisions don’t eliminate all liability for past violations.
Enforcement Actions
Open source license enforcement comes from copyright holders asserting rights, community pressure and reputational damage, and organizations like Software Freedom Conservancy bringing enforcement actions.
Multi-License Projects
Dual Licensing
Some projects offer AI models under multiple licenses, typically combining copyleft for community use and commercial licenses for proprietary use.
Users choose which license to follow based on their needs.
License Compatibility Challenges
Projects incorporating multiple open source components must ensure license compatibility. Combining GPL and Apache code creates issues requiring careful legal analysis.
License Stacks in AI
AI systems often include multiple layers including inference code under one license, model weights under another, and training data under yet another. Each layer’s license must be satisfied.
Contributing to Open Source AI
Contributor License Agreements
Many open source projects require CLAs where contributors grant rights to project maintainers. CLAs ensure projects can license code as intended and defend against license violations.
Developer Certificate of Origin
Some projects use DCO instead of CLAs where contributors certify they have rights to contribute code and agree to licensing terms.
Employment and IP Assignment
Contributors employed by companies must ensure they have authority to contribute including employer IP assignment agreements permitting open source contributions and clearance from employers for significant contributions.
Commercial AI Built on Open Source
Permissible Commercial Uses
Permissive licenses allow building commercial products on open source foundations through fine-tuning for specific applications, hosting models as services, and integrating into proprietary systems.
Proper attribution remains required.
SaaS and License Obligations
Providing AI models via API or SaaS generally doesn’t trigger distribution under GPL (except AGPL). This enables commercial services using GPL components without releasing source.
Hybrid Open/Proprietary Models
Many AI companies use hybrid approaches combining open source base models with proprietary improvements, permissively licensed foundations with proprietary applications, and open source community models with commercial support offerings.
Best Practices for Open Source AI Compliance
License Inventory and Tracking
Maintain comprehensive inventories of all open source components used including model weights, training code, inference code, and datasets, with license identification for each.
Compliance Review Processes
Implement processes for reviewing license compliance before using new open source components, prior to distributing products, and for ongoing monitoring.
Legal Review
Engage counsel experienced in open source licensing to review compliance, advise on license compatibility, and handle complex scenarios.
Documentation and Attribution
Maintain thorough documentation of license provenance, attribution requirements, and compliance measures.
Conclusion: Navigating Open Source AI Licensing
Open source licensing is critical for AI innovation but creates complex legal obligations. Companies must understand license types and obligations, evaluate compatibility when combining components, implement robust compliance processes, and engage legal counsel for complex scenarios.
Responsible open source practices enable leveraging community innovation while respecting license terms and avoiding legal risks.
Contact Rock LAW PLLC for Open Source AI Licensing Counsel
At Rock LAW PLLC, we help companies navigate open source licensing for AI systems.
We assist with:
- Open source license compliance reviews
- License compatibility analysis
- Commercial licensing strategy
- License violation remediation
- Contributor agreement drafting
- IP clearance for contributions
Contact us for expert guidance on open source AI licensing compliance.
Related Articles:
- Software Licensing for AI-Generated Code
- Copyright Exceptions for AI Training
- IP Issues in AI Research Collaborations
Rock LAW PLLC
Business Focused. Intellectual Property Driven.
www.rock.law/