Dear Competition Host ( @braxtonowens ),
\nI would like to clarify whether we are allowed to use copyleft-licensed tools in our winning solution.
\nAccording to the competition rule (WINNER LICENSE), winners must release their solutions under the MIT license. However, the rules also mention that external tools can be used as long as they are \"reasonably accessible to all\" and of \"minimal cost.\"
\nIf we use a tool with a copyleft license (e.g., AGPL-3.0) in our solution, it may create a license conflict.
\nFor example, Ultralytics/YOLOv8 is licensed under AGPL-3.0 [1], which requires that any forked version be distributed under the AGPL-3.0 license.
\nThis seems to contradict the requirement that the winning solution must be released under MIT.
Could you confirm which of the following interpretations is correct?
\nIf none of these options fully capture the competition’s rules, could you clarify the expected licensing requirements in this case?
\nDear Competition Host ( @braxtonowens ),
\nI would like to clarify whether we are allowed to use copyleft-licensed tools in our winning solution.
\nAccording to the competition rule (WINNER LICENSE), winners must release their solutions under the MIT license. However, the rules also mention that external tools can be used as long as they are \"reasonably accessible to all\" and of \"minimal cost.\"
\nIf we use a tool with a copyleft license (e.g., AGPL-3.0) in our solution, it may create a license conflict.
\nFor example, Ultralytics/YOLOv8 is licensed under AGPL-3.0 [1], which requires that any forked version be distributed under the AGPL-3.0 license.
\nThis seems to contradict the requirement that the winning solution must be released under MIT.
Could you confirm which of the following interpretations is correct?
\nIf none of these options fully capture the competition’s rules, could you clarify the expected licensing requirements in this case?
\nGreat question! Thank you for carefully reading and considering the rules.
\nAs you point out, the rules state an exception to the MIT license requirement for software that is commercially available that can be procured without undue expense by the Competition Sponsor. That does apply to YOLOV8, which is free to all. If you make modifications and license it under AGPL-3.0 (as required by YOLOV8's license), your solution is valid if you make your solution and modification generally available.
\nIf you use an un-modified pretrained model with a license that is incompatible with the MIT license to generate your solution, you do not need to grant an open source license for that model.
\nSo in summary, your interpretation 3 is correct, provided that you make your solution and methods generally available.
\nIf you have further questions about which models and licenses are permitted, it is helpful for me to look at other Kaggle competitions with the same rules about licensing. For instance, in the recent CZII competition, one of the default models is YOLO11, which also has an AGPL-3.0 license.
\nDoes that answer your question?
", "rawMarkdown": "Great question! Thank you for carefully reading and considering the rules.\n\nAs you point out, the rules state an exception to the MIT license requirement for software that is commercially available that can be procured without undue expense by the Competition Sponsor. That does apply to YOLOV8, which is free to all. If you make modifications and license it under AGPL-3.0 (as required by YOLOV8's license), your solution is valid if you make your solution and modification generally available. \n\nIf you use an un-modified pretrained model with a license that is incompatible with the MIT license to generate your solution, you do not need to grant an open source license for that model.\n\nSo in summary, your interpretation 3 is correct, provided that you make your solution and methods generally available.\n\nIf you have further questions about which models and licenses are permitted, it is helpful for me to look at other Kaggle competitions with the same rules about licensing. For instance, in the [recent CZII competition](https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/czii-cryo-et-object-identification/models), one of the default models is YOLO11, which also has an AGPL-3.0 license.\n\nDoes that answer your question?", "votes": null }, { "id": "3144903", "postDate": "03/09/2025 03:33:34", "content": "\nThank you for your prompt response.
\nI understand that it is allowed to include copyleft-licensed products such as YOLOv8 in the solution and that there is no requirement to release them under the MIT license.
\nHowever, in an extreme case, it is possible that a modified version of YOLOv8 could constitute 100% of the solution. In such a case, would it still be acceptable in this competition as long as the entire solution is made publicly available under a compatible license (i.e. AGPL-3.0 etc.)?
", "rawMarkdown": "jacksonpond \n\nThank you for your prompt response.\n\nI understand that it is allowed to include copyleft-licensed products such as YOLOv8 in the solution and that there is no requirement to release them under the MIT license.\n\nHowever, in an extreme case, it is possible that a modified version of YOLOv8 could constitute 100% of the solution. In such a case, would it still be acceptable in this competition as long as the entire solution is made publicly available under a compatible license (i.e. AGPL-3.0 etc.)?", "votes": null } ], "comments": [ { "id": 3143935, "author_name": "jacksonpond", "author_url": "", "post_date": "03/07/2025 18:27:38", "content": "Great question! Thank you for carefully reading and considering the rules.
\nAs you point out, the rules state an exception to the MIT license requirement for software that is commercially available that can be procured without undue expense by the Competition Sponsor. That does apply to YOLOV8, which is free to all. If you make modifications and license it under AGPL-3.0 (as required by YOLOV8's license), your solution is valid if you make your solution and modification generally available.
\nIf you use an un-modified pretrained model with a license that is incompatible with the MIT license to generate your solution, you do not need to grant an open source license for that model.
\nSo in summary, your interpretation 3 is correct, provided that you make your solution and methods generally available.
\nIf you have further questions about which models and licenses are permitted, it is helpful for me to look at other Kaggle competitions with the same rules about licensing. For instance, in the recent CZII competition, one of the default models is YOLO11, which also has an AGPL-3.0 license.
\nDoes that answer your question?
", "votes": null, "replies": [ { "id": 3144903, "author_name": "tatamikenn", "author_url": "", "post_date": "03/09/2025 03:33:34", "content": "\nThank you for your prompt response.
\nI understand that it is allowed to include copyleft-licensed products such as YOLOv8 in the solution and that there is no requirement to release them under the MIT license.
\nHowever, in an extreme case, it is possible that a modified version of YOLOv8 could constitute 100% of the solution. In such a case, would it still be acceptable in this competition as long as the entire solution is made publicly available under a compatible license (i.e. AGPL-3.0 etc.)?
", "votes": null, "replies": [] } ] } ], "raw_markdown_by_id": { "3143697": "Dear Competition Host ( @braxtonowens ), \n\nI would like to clarify whether we are allowed to use copyleft-licensed tools in our winning solution. \n\nAccording to the competition rule (WINNER LICENSE), winners must release their solutions under the MIT license. However, the rules also mention that external tools can be used as long as they are \"reasonably accessible to all\" and of \"minimal cost.\"\n\n### **Question** \nIf we use a tool with a copyleft license (e.g., AGPL-3.0) in our solution, it may create a license conflict. \nFor example, **Ultralytics/YOLOv8 is licensed under AGPL-3.0 [1], which requires that any forked version be distributed under the AGPL-3.0 license**. \nThis seems to contradict the requirement that the winning solution must be released under MIT.\n\nCould you confirm which of the following interpretations is correct? \n\n1. **Copyleft-licensed tools (e.g., AGPL-3.0) cannot be used in winning solutions.** \n2. **Copyleft-licensed tools can be used, but modified versions cannot be included.** \n3. **Copyleft-licensed tools can be used, including modified versions, and the modified version does not need to be released under MIT.** \n\nIf none of these options fully capture the competition’s rules, could you clarify the expected licensing requirements in this case? \n\n## **Reference** \n- [1] https://github.com/ultralytics/ultralytics/blob/main/LICENSE", "3143935": "Great question! Thank you for carefully reading and considering the rules.\n\nAs you point out, the rules state an exception to the MIT license requirement for software that is commercially available that can be procured without undue expense by the Competition Sponsor. That does apply to YOLOV8, which is free to all. If you make modifications and license it under AGPL-3.0 (as required by YOLOV8's license), your solution is valid if you make your solution and modification generally available. \n\nIf you use an un-modified pretrained model with a license that is incompatible with the MIT license to generate your solution, you do not need to grant an open source license for that model.\n\nSo in summary, your interpretation 3 is correct, provided that you make your solution and methods generally available.\n\nIf you have further questions about which models and licenses are permitted, it is helpful for me to look at other Kaggle competitions with the same rules about licensing. For instance, in the [recent CZII competition](https://www.kaggle.com/competitions/czii-cryo-et-object-identification/models), one of the default models is YOLO11, which also has an AGPL-3.0 license.\n\nDoes that answer your question?", "3144903": "jacksonpond \n\nThank you for your prompt response.\n\nI understand that it is allowed to include copyleft-licensed products such as YOLOv8 in the solution and that there is no requirement to release them under the MIT license.\n\nHowever, in an extreme case, it is possible that a modified version of YOLOv8 could constitute 100% of the solution. In such a case, would it still be acceptable in this competition as long as the entire solution is made publicly available under a compatible license (i.e. AGPL-3.0 etc.)?" }, "source": "meta" }