Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper employs large language models to systematically compare software licenses by establishing a partial ordering based on their permissiveness and analyzing them through existing taxonomies. The study addresses the challenge of unstructured license interpretation, enabling clearer comparisons that can inform developers and platforms like Hugging Face and GitHub. Key findings reveal interpretable attributes linked to stricter licenses, highlighting their legal implications for the open-source ecosystem.
A systematic comparison of software licenses reveals hidden attributes that could redefine how developers choose and enforce licensing terms.
Licenses are legal instruments that inventors may use to protect the technologies they build and regulate how they are used -- however, the nature of their authorship and selection means that how they are interpreted, chosen, and enforced is largely unstructured. In practice, this makes it difficult to compare licenses at scale -- when is one license considered more permissive than the other, and when are their terms incomparable to each other? Currently, there is a growing list of licenses that are introduced and used, but there is no systematic way to study their relationships. This matters for platforms such as Hugging Face, GitHub, and the Python Package Index, where developers publish or build upon technologies that each have their own licenses. Using large language models (LLMs), we introduce methods for comparing licenses at scale: first, in a pairwise fashion to construct a partial ordering based on permissiveness, and second, by drawing on existing taxonomies of software licenses. The former allows us to trace restrictiveness, and the latter allows us to understand license selection as a combination of shared provisions. Our analysis recovers certain interpretable attributes that correspond to stricter licenses, with legal implications for the open-source ecosystem.
UW