HKUSTAudio/Llasa-3B · ## 🚨License Conflict: LLaMA 3.2 vs CC BY-NC 4.0

Hi, I'd like to report a License Conflict in HKUSTAudio/Llasa-3B. I noticed this model was fine-tuned from meta-llama/Llama-3.2-3B-Instruct, which is released under the LLaMA 3.2 Community License. From what I can see, HKUSTAudio/Llasa-3B is currently licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0, and also includes additional usage restrictions (e.g., ethics/privacy disclaimers and local law compliance statements). That may raise some compliance questions, because the LLaMA 3.2 license has strict requirements for redistribution, naming, and licensing that may not be compatible with more restrictive downstream terms.

⚠️ Key violations of LLaMA 3.2 license terms:

Clause 1.b.i – Redistribution and Derivatives:
  • Derivatives must retain the original license
  • Must include a “Built with LLaMA” statement
  • Model name must start with “Llama”

Clause 1.b.iii – Required Notice:
  • A “NOTICE” file must be included with:
    "Llama 3.2 is licensed under the LLaMA 3.2 Community License, Copyright © Meta Platforms, Inc."

Clause 2 – Additional Restrictions:
  • The license does not permit adding **incompatible terms** (e.g., more restrictive clauses)
  • Adding new restrictions (like banning all commercial use) could conflict with the original license’s scope

Meanwhile, CC BY-NC 4.0 introduces:

• Prohibitions on commercial use (NC = NonCommercial)
• Additional human-authored restrictions (e.g., ethics/privacy statements)
• Potential limitations on redistribution based on jurisdiction

Using a more restrictive license like CC BY-NC 4.0 on top of a LLaMA 3.2–licensed base model might violate the original license’s requirement that derivatives must not impose incompatible or conflicting terms. This could confuse downstream users about:

 • Whether redistribution is allowed
 • Whether the model complies with Meta’s terms
 • What usage is actually permitted (especially in research or startup settings)

🔹 Suggestions (just a friendly heads-up! 😊):

To help bring this in line with LLaMA 3.2’s licensing terms, it might be worth considering:

📝 Including a copy of the LLaMA 3.2 license

📄 Adding the required “NOTICE” file

💬 If the intention is to restrict commercial use, it may be better to stick with LLaMA 3.2 only, which already has provisions regarding acceptable use and commercial thresholds (like the 700M MAU clause)

Thanks for your attention!