Software and artificial intelligence ventures rely extensively on open-source code libraries and open-weights foundation models throughout product development. Public availability of a code repository or model checkpoint does not imply unrestricted commercial freedom; the scope of lawful exploitation is governed by the applicable licence terms alongside Law No. 5846 on Intellectual and Artistic Works (FSEK).

Public code availability and the legal nature of copyright licences

Under Turkish copyright law, computer programs are protected as literary and scientific works, while adaptations derived from an existing program without being independent of it constitute derivative works (FSEK Art. 2, item 1, Art. 6, item 10). An open-source licence does not represent a waiver of copyright; rather, it grants a conditional exploitation licence covering reproduction, adaptation, distribution and communication to the public subject to compliance with stated obligations (FSEK Art. 48). Using open-source components outside those licence conditions exceeds the scope of authorisation and may expose the venture to statutory claims for cessation of infringement, prevention and damages.

Distribution and network-interaction effects of permissive (MIT, Apache 2.0) and copyleft (GPL, AGPLv3) licences

Permissive licences such as MIT, BSD and Apache 2.0 allow incorporation into proprietary commercial software provided copyright notices, licence texts and—in the case of Apache 2.0—modification notices and patent clauses are preserved. Reciprocal (copyleft) licences such as GNU GPL, by contrast, require derivative software distributed with the library to be licensed as a whole under the same open-source terms. For cloud-hosted SaaS and AI API ventures, the decisive distinction arises under GNU AGPLv3: whereas classical GPL obligations are generally triggered upon conveying copies to third parties, Section 13 of AGPLv3 stipulates that where a modified version of the program is run on a server supporting remote interaction, all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network must be offered no-charge access to the Corresponding Source. Corresponding Source depends on the licence version and technical combination; an AGPL component does not automatically require disclosure of every part of a SaaS service. GPL source obligations must likewise be assessed through conveying copies and providing source to recipients, rather than a universal duty to publish all code to the public.

Use-case and scale restrictions in open-weights AI model licences

Many foundation models released with publicly downloadable weights are governed not by OSI-approved open-source licences, but by custom community or responsible-use licences. Such instruments frequently impose monthly active user ceilings, sector-specific acceptable-use exclusions, or prohibitions on using model outputs to train competing foundation models. Where a venture’s core product builds upon an open-weights model, technical architecture and commercial scaling or enterprise sublicensing plans must be reviewed together against those thresholds.

Software bill of materials (SBOM) and chain-of-title verification prior to investment due diligence

In venture financing rounds and M&A transactions, institutional investors routinely require representations and warranties confirming that proprietary core software is free of third-party encumbrances and has not become subject to mandatory source-code disclosure under copyleft licences. Maintaining an up-to-date software bill of materials (SBOM), preserving third-party attribution files, and ensuring valid written IP assignments from external developers upon completion of code modules (FSEK Arts. 50(1) and 52) directly mitigate indemnification exposure at closing.

Longer working paper

Software Rights, Cross-Border Data Transfers and EU AI Act Obligations for AI and SaaS Ventures in Türkiye (working paper, 2026, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.23896353)

Official sources and references

Source links point to official texts and references. This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice for any specific matter.