Decision inputs
Facts that change the policy answer
The working material is package metadata, licence text and intended distribution; the intended result is a preliminary licence summary. Recording that pair prevents a vague approval from spreading to other uses.
- 1Task and owner
- Software engineer wants to check an open-source dependency licence. Record the person who will stand behind a preliminary licence summary after the tool has finished.
- 2Information involved
- Package metadata, licence text and intended distribution. Look beyond pasted text: files, integrations and retrieval connections can expose the same material.
- 3Tool and account
- An approved company account. A personal login can handle information differently from the company-managed version of the same tool.
- 4Intended result
- The expected result is a preliminary licence summary. The policy needs to know what happens after generation, including publication, communication and automated use.
- 5Consequence if it is wrong
- Licence compatibility is a legal conclusion and package metadata can be wrong. Use this consequence to distinguish a routine request from one needing specialist approval.
- 6Human review
- open-source or legal owner should inspect, change, reject or stop the result. A final glance after an automatic action would not give that owner meaningful control.
Possible policy routes
The task name alone cannot decide it.
A published workplace policy can return different answers for the same task. These are the practical branches worth encoding.
A routine policy route may be possible
The request may fit ordinary policy handling once the exact account is approved, only the minimum public information is used, a preliminary licence summary remains within the stated purpose, and open-source or legal owner reviews it before use.
Approval may be required
Send the request for approval if the account or data handling is uncertain, licence compatibility is a legal conclusion and package metadata can be wrong, or a preliminary licence summary reaches people or systems beyond the requester’s authority.
The request may need to stop or change
The company may need a safer design when restricted information would enter an unapproved service, the output would act before open-source or legal owner can intervene, or verify the original licence and route ambiguous obligations for review cannot be maintained. Consider less information, a controlled account or a non-AI process.
Request checklist
Questions to ask before using the tool
- 01
Has the company approved this account configuration for check an open-source dependency licence, rather than only approving the product?
- 02
Can any personal, sensitive, confidential or secret part of package metadata, licence text and intended distribution be removed?
- 03
Does a preliminary licence summary create an external statement, a decision or an automated action?
- 04
Who replaces open-source or legal owner when the request falls outside ordinary expertise?
- 05
Which change in tool, data, purpose or impact would require a fresh request?
Worked request
What the employee should submit
This example supplies decision facts without pasting the underlying material into the approval record.
- requester
- software engineer
- task
- Use AI to check an open-source dependency licence.
- information
- package metadata, licence text and intended distribution
- tool
- An approved company account
- frequency
- Recurring work
- region
- Where the work and affected people are located
- purpose
- Analyse
- impact
- Legal compliance
- review
- Complete human review
- owner
- open-source or legal owner
Useful safeguards
Controls that fit this request
- ✓
Verify the original licence and route ambiguous obligations for review
- ✓
Document why each part of package metadata, licence text and intended distribution is necessary before making it available to the tool.
- ✓
Set an expiry or review point when recurring work turns into a permanent process.
- ✓
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately.
Questions people ask
About this AI use
Is using AI to check an open-source dependency licence automatically allowed?
The company policy supplies the answer after it receives the real tool, data, purpose, impact and review plan. This page only prepares those facts.
How specific should the workplace AI request be?
Describe a preliminary licence summary, identify package metadata, licence text and intended distribution, name the exact tool and account, explain who will receive or rely on the output, and state how open-source or legal owner will review it.
What belongs in the completed policy record?
Link the completed check to the applicable policy version and append later reassessments separately. A classification and controlled reference may be enough when copying package metadata, licence text and intended distribution would create unnecessary risk.