How An AI Proprietary License Can Damage Sovereignty

Introduction

Eroding true digital sovereignty while offering the illusion of autonomy

In the race for artificial intelligence supremacy, the battle lines are no longer drawn solely by computing power or dataset size but by the legal frameworks that govern them. For nations and enterprises alike, the promise of “open” AI often masks a precarious reality: the licenses attached to these powerful models can act as a Trojan horse, eroding true digital sovereignty while offering the illusion of autonomy. When an organization builds its critical infrastructure on an AI model it does not fully own or control, it effectively outsources its strategic independence to a foreign entity’s legal team.

The Illusion of “Open”

The most insidious threat to sovereignty comes from the phenomenon known as “open-washing.” Many leading AI models are marketed as “open” but are released under restrictive licenses that do not meet the Open Source Initiative’s (OSI) definition of open source. Unlike true open-source software, which guarantees freedoms to use, study, modify, and share without discrimination, these custom licenses – often termed “source-available” or Responsible AI Licenses (RAIL) – retain significant control for the licensor. For an enterprise or a government, this distinction is not merely semantic; it is structural. A license that restricts usage based on vague “ethical” guidelines or field-of-use limitations grants the licensor extraterritorial authority. A US-based tech giant can unilaterally decide that a European energy company’s use of a model for “high-risk” optimization violates its terms of service. In this scenario, the user has the code but not the command. The licensor remains the ultimate arbiter of how the technology acts, turning what should be a sovereign asset into a tethered service that can be legally disabled from thousands of miles away.

Legal Lock-in

When AI models are treated as licensed products rather than community commons, they create a form of “infrastructural power.” Corporations that control the licensing terms effectively become digital warlords, exercising authority that rivals state regulators. By dictating the terms of participation in the AI economy, these firms create deep dependencies. This creates a sovereignty trap. Once an enterprise integrates a restrictively licensed model into its workflows – fine-tuning it with proprietary data and building applications on top – switching costs become prohibitive. If the licensor changes the terms, introduces a paid tier for enterprise scale, or revokes the license due to a geopolitical shift (such as new export controls), the downstream user is left stranded. The “sovereign” system suddenly becomes a liability, capable of being shut down or legally encumbered by a foreign court’s interpretation of a license agreement. True sovereignty requires immunity from such external revocation, a quality that proprietary and restrictive licenses inherently deny.

The Data Sovereignty Disconnect

AI sovereignty is inextricably downstream of data sovereignty, and licensing plays a critical role in bridging – or breaking – this link. Restrictive licenses often prohibit the reversing or unmasking of training data, which keeps the model as a “black box.” For a nation attempting to enforce its own laws (such as GDPR in Europe), this lack of transparency is a direct violation of sovereign oversight. If a government cannot audit a model to understand exactly whose data it was trained on or why it makes certain decisions, it cannot protect its citizens’ rights. Furthermore, some licenses effectively claim ownership over the improvements or “derivatives” created by the user. If a company fine-tunes a foundation model with its most sensitive trade secrets, a predatory license clause could grant the original model creator rights to those improvements or the telemetry data generated by them. This turns local innovation into value extraction for the licensor, hollowing out the domestic AI ecosystem and reducing local industries to mere consumers of foreign intellectual property.

Geopolitical Vulnerability

On a macro scale, AI licenses function as instruments of foreign policy. We have already seen instances where access to software and models is restricted based on the user’s location or nationality to comply with export control lists. A license that includes compliance clauses with US or Chinese export laws means that a user in a third country is subject to the geopolitical whims of the licensor’s home government. If a license allows the provider to terminate access for “compliance with applicable laws,” a diplomatic spat or a new trade sanction could instantly render critical AI infrastructure illegal or inoperable. This weaponization of licensing terms forces nations to align politically with the technology provider, stripping them of the neutrality and independence that constitute the core of sovereignty.

Conclusion

A license that restricts usage, obscures data, or allows for revocation is incompatible with the concept of sovereignty.

The allure of powerful, free-to-download models is strong, but the price of admission is often control. A license that restricts usage, obscures data, or allows for revocation is incompatible with the concept of sovereignty. For true independence, business technologists and national strategists must look beyond the marketing labels and scrutinize the legal code as closely as the source code. Sovereignty in the AI age cannot exist on borrowed land; it requires software that is truly free, permanently available, and beholden to no master but the user.

References: