legal status of MAED and FINPLAN projects

77 views
Skip to first unread message

Robbie Morrison

unread,
Aug 9, 2026, 7:11:30 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
to openmod list

Hello all

I have previously talked about the legal and community status of the MAED and FINPLAN projects on this list.

I just blogged my latest update here: https://forum.openmod.org/t/3672/11

If anyone can offer further information, I would be delighted to hear from you, in public or private.

I am not seeking an extended discussion here, but rather clarity on the current legal and community situation regarding these two protects.

with best wishes, Robbie

-- 
Robbie Morrison
Address: Schillerstrasse 85, 10627 Berlin, Germany
Phone: +49.30.612-87617

Mark Howells

unread,
Aug 9, 2026, 7:27:56 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
to openmod list
Dear Robbie,
Thanks for continuing to look carefully at this, and particularly for making clear that you are willing to revise your assessment if further evidence emerges.
There is, though, one important distinction which I think should be clear on this list.
Both of the public repositories currently contain BSD-3-Clause licences identifying IAEA as the copyright holder. On their face, therefore, these are open-source distributions. Repository inactivity, the use of the abbreviation “IAEA”, or the date on the copyright notice does not by itself invalidate that licence.
There is a separate and perfectly reasonable provenance question: whether the party placing the code under BSD had authority to license all of the material concerned. If there is evidence that it did not, that would clearly matter. But absence of independent confirmation is not, by itself, evidence that the licence is invalid.
So, I think the most precise formulation is: there may be a provenance question that someone could usefully clarify, but the repositories themselves are presently and expressly distributed under open-source licences.
One final procedural point. Since the concern was raised on this large mailing list, I think the substantive clarification should also be given here. Moving the discussion to a much less-read forum risks leaving this audience with the allegation but not the answer, which I am sure is not your intention.
I hope that distinction helps. Your diligence in asking the provenance question is useful; I would simply be more cautious about what can properly be concluded from the presently available evidence.
Best wishes, Mark


From: openmod-i...@googlegroups.com <openmod-i...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Robbie Morrison <robbie....@posteo.de>
Sent: 09 August 2026 12:11
To: openmod list <openmod-i...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [openmod-initiative] legal status of MAED and FINPLAN projects
 

** THIS MESSAGE ORIGINATED OUTSIDE LOUGHBOROUGH UNIVERSITY **

** Be wary of links or attachments, especially if the email is unsolicited or you don't recognise the sender's email address. **

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "openmod initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to openmod-initiat...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion, visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/openmod-initiative/210583e1-5799-4400-96b5-cbdf8467ef9a%40posteo.de.

Robbie Morrison

unread,
Aug 9, 2026, 7:36:03 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
to openmod-i...@googlegroups.com

Hello Mark, all

Could you explicitly state that 'IAEA' stands for the 'International Atomic Energy Agency' in this context?  That is a pretty simple statement to make, I would imagine.

best, Robbie

Mark Howells

unread,
Aug 9, 2026, 7:49:33 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
to openmod-i...@googlegroups.com
Dear Robbie,

Your meticulous attention to detail and dedication is as always an amazing asset ...and (looking at my notes 🙂) is long standing (Howells, 2025).

To address your question directly from a legal standpoint: the controlling factor here is simply whether the software is open source. It is.

Here is the breakdown:

  1. Express Grant Controls: Both repositories contain explicit BSD-3-Clause license files in their root directories (MAED Development Team, 2023; FINPLAN Development Team, 2023). Under intellectual property law, publishing source code alongside an OSI-approved open-source license creates an immediate, legally binding public grant of rights.

  2. Contextual Plain Meaning: The root README.md files in both official repositories explicitly state that the software was "developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)". In legal interpretation, an abbreviation in a license notice is read in context with the complete distribution. "IAEA" is legally unambiguous here.

Requiring an additional public declaration on this list that "IAEA" stands for "International Atomic Energy Agency" adds zero legal force to an already valid license grant. Asking for formal confirmation of this acronym is as legally redundant as asking you to verify that "IAEA" translates in 8-bit binary ASCII to 01001001 01000001 01000101 01000001
 🙂 . While factually accurate, requiring such hyper-explicit confirmation creates unnecessary doubt where no IMHO ambiguity exists.

The repositories are distributed under valid open-source licenses today.

Best, Mark

References


Sent: 09 August 2026 12:35
To: openmod-i...@googlegroups.com <openmod-i...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [openmod-initiative] legal status of MAED and FINPLAN projects
 

Robbie Morrison

unread,
Aug 9, 2026, 7:59:55 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
to openmod-i...@googlegroups.com

Hello Mark

Could you please answer my earlier question please regarding the meaning of "IAEA" in the context of those two GitHub repos?

This is not simply a matter of licensing semantics.  There are claims in the academic literature that need be correct and subject to third‑party verification too.

In my view, there are solutions to the issues I raise.  But debating the details of a particular licensing agreement, clause‑by‑clause, is not one of them.

best, Robbie

Mark Howells

unread,
Aug 9, 2026, 8:32:52 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
to Open Mod
Dear Robbie,

The text in the repositories already answers your question explicitly.

The root
README.md
file in both public repositories states:

"developed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)".

While you note that "debating the details... clause-by-clause is not [the solution]", this is not a matter of subjective debate—the answer exists in the primary source text itself.

For both licensing law and academic third-party verification, the repository documentation establishes two unambiguous facts:

  1. Identity: "IAEA" is explicitly defined as the International Atomic Energy Agency.

  2. Legal Status: The software is distributed under an OSI-approved BSD-3-Clause open-source license.

Third parties can verify both statements directly in the root documentation of the public repositories today.

Best regards, Mark

References
    • FINPLAN Development Team (2023) FINPLAN-Code Repository. Available at: https://github.com/FINPLAN-Model/FINPLAN-Code [Source Data: Root
      /LICENSE
      (BSD-3-Clause grant) and
      /README.md
      (defining "International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)")].

    • Morrison, R. (2026) Re: [openmod-initiative] legal status of MAED and FINPLAN projects, openmod-initiative Google Group email (09 Aug 2026).


    Sent: 09 August 2026 12:59

    Robbie Morrison

    unread,
    Aug 9, 2026, 8:37:51 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
    to openmod-i...@googlegroups.com

    Dear Mark, all

    There has been no new independent information that the International Atomic Energy Agency is indeed the copyright holder for the two public repos for MAED and FINPLAN and has consented to the BSD‑3‑Clause licenses present in each.  Any party could have created those GitHub repos.

    Due diligence is a matter for code recipients.  I would have expected the International Atomic Energy Agency to respond to my two early written requests for confirmation.

    Other organizations inevitably reply to me in this context.  For instance, the chair of ENTSO‑E once answered a query regarding the public sector status of that entity under the then new EU Open Data Act.

    I suggest people proceed with care if you want to enter the IMPACCT ecosystem.

    I am not wishing to be hostile to this (or any other) project.  But I do believe that legal integrity is vitally important to open‑source development.

    I will write again to the International Atomic Energy Agency tomorrow, I may get a response this time?

    If Mark wants to do likewise, that would certainly help clarify the legal provenance we are currently debating.

    with best wishes, Robbie

    Mark Howells

    unread,
    Aug 9, 2026, 8:53:07 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
    to Open Mod
    Dear Robbie,

    To clarify open-source licensing law for this list: institutional non-response to an unsolicited email is legally neutral. It does not create legal uncertainty, nor does it displace an express public license grant.

    Here is the straightforward legal reality:

    1. Facially Valid License Grant: Under intellectual property law, source code published in a public repository with an OSI-approved license file (BSD-3-Clause) constitutes an express, legally effective grant of rights (MAED Development Team, 2023; FINPLAN Development Team, 2023). Downstream recipients are legally entitled to rely on published license terms.

    2. Neutrality of Silence: An organization's decision not to answer third-party inquiries is not evidence of copyright defect, revocation, or lack of authorization. Legal invalidity requires affirmative proof of copyright infringement, not unverified conjecture (Morrison, 2026).

    3. Standard of Due Diligence: Open-source due diligence relies on the written notices published in the repository root (
      /LICENSE
      and
      /README.md
      ). Speculating that "anyone could have uploaded the repository" without producing evidence of an adverse copyright claim creates artificial doubt unsupported by legal standard.

    Both repositories are expressly licensed under BSD-3-Clause terms today. Users can utilize them with complete legal reliance under open-source law.

    Best regards, Mark

    References
        • Source Data: Root
          /LICENSE
          (BSD-3-Clause grant) and
          /README.md
        • (identifying copyright holder as International Atomic Energy Agency).


        • Source Data: Root
          /LICENSE
          (BSD-3-Clause grant) and
          /README.md
        • (identifying copyright holder as International Atomic Energy Agency).


      • Morrison, R. (2026) Re: [openmod-initiative] legal status of MAED and FINPLAN projects, openmod-initiative Google Group email (09 Aug 2026). Available at: https://groups.google.com/g/openmod-initiative


      Sent: 09 August 2026 13:37

      Robbie Morrison

      unread,
      Aug 9, 2026, 9:21:00 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
      to openmod-i...@googlegroups.com

      Hello Mark

      To clarify, my two registered letters were addressed to the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency and they are legally significant.  As I mentioned too, the chair of ENTSO‑E happily replied to me in a similar context.

      As I said earlier, we are in this gray zone where I cannot complete due diligence, despite very considerable good faith efforts.  The has been my consistent position.

      For those unaware, I have been part of a open source law community hosted by the Free Software Foundation Europe for about a decade now.  And regularly interact with technology lawyers from Europe and the United States regarding open-source licensing, license compliance, due diligence, litigation, and case law.

      Mark's comment about the primacy of copyright and license notices found in public repositories is simply incorrect.  They are a starting point, yes.  But they are not definitive.  Their veracity needs to be established, where doubt might arise.

      Once again, I would like to ask Mark to ask someone with standing from the International Atomic Energy Agency to confirm the legal status of those various instruments.  Mark has better contacts with the IAEA than I do, of course.  That simple act would clarify everything in an instant if those two repos are indeed in order.  We would need something on letterhead.

      with best wishes, Robbie

      Mark Howells

      unread,
      Aug 9, 2026, 9:59:28 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
      to openmod-i...@googlegroups.com
      Dear Robbie,
      I think the remaining disagreement is narrower than it may appear.
      Both public repositories currently contain BSD-3-Clause licence files naming “IAEA” as copyright holder. Their README files identify IAEA as the International Atomic Energy Agency and state that the software was developed by it.
      That establishes the first point clearly: the repositories presently and expressly offer the software under BSD-3-Clause terms.
      The BSD-3-Clause licence permits use, modification and redistribution subject to its stated conditions. An authorized open-source licence can therefore create legally effective permissions for downstream users.
      You raise a separate provenance question: whether whoever published those licences had authority from the relevant copyright owner to do so.
      That is a legitimate question. A licence file is evidence of authority; it does not, by itself, prove the entire chain of title for every line of code.
      But that does not lead to the conclusion that users should treat the published licences as legally suspect.
      The evidence currently available points the other way.
      The repositories contain express BSD-3-Clause grants. They identify IAEA as copyright holder. The accompanying documentation identifies the International Atomic Energy Agency as the developer. IAEA itself publicly identifies MAED as one of its energy-planning tools. No contrary copyright claimant, IAEA repudiation, unauthorized-release notice, or other evidence of defective licensing authority has been identified in this discussion.
      The logical position is therefore:
      There is a provenance question that IAEA could usefully confirm, but there is presently no evidence that the published BSD-3-Clause licences are unauthorized.
      That distinction matters for downstream users.
      A theoretical possibility that a licence might have been issued without authority is not evidence that this occurred here. Nor does IAEA's failure to answer correspondence turn an existing public licence into a provisional one.
      Silence proves neither authorization nor lack of authorization. It simply leaves the additional provenance question unanswered.
      For that reason, I do not think the present evidence supports warning people that using MAED or FINPLAN within their work, including IMPACCT is legally suspect. On the evidence presently available, the community has strong grounds to use, modify and redistribute the software in accordance with the BSD-3-Clause licences supplied with it.
      An IAEA confirmation would strengthen that position further by resolving the residual provenance question. It is not what creates the licence in the first place.
      And, in fairness to the Agency, between its work on nuclear non-proliferation and keeping nuclear-safety teams engaged at Chornobyl and other Ukrainian nuclear sites during a war, it may be unsurprising that answering our software-licensing correspondence has not reached the top of its inbox. 🙂
      So my position is not that provenance never matters. It is that the evidence presently identified does not justify treating these repositories, or - for e.g. - IMPACCT's use of them under their stated licences, as legally suspect.
      Best wishes, Mark
      Sent: 09 August 2026 14:20

      Robbie Morrison

      unread,
      Aug 9, 2026, 10:29:00 AM (8 days ago) Aug 9
      to openmod-i...@googlegroups.com

      Hello Mark

      This discussion has gone about as far as it usefully can.

      The only party that can ultimately clarify the situation is the International Atomic Energy Agency.

      I will continue with my efforts to establish due diligence elsewhere.

      I appreciate your engagement.

      with best wishes, Robbie

      Reply all
      Reply to author
      Forward
      0 new messages