License incompatibility
Hi,I'd like to report a license conflict in ruslanmvMedical-Llama3-8B. I noticed that this model was fine-tuned from meta-llama/Meta-Llama-3-8B, but it's currently published under the Apache-2.0 license. After taking a look at the META LLAMA 3 COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT, I found there can be a mismatch between different licensing terms. This inconsistency can make it confusing for people to understand what rules to follow when they use or share the model."
⚠️ Key violations of META LLAMA 3 COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT:
Clause 1.b.i – Redistribution and Use:
• No license file included (should contain the META LLAMA 3 COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT)
• "Built with Meta Llama 3" is not prominently displayed
• Model name does not begin with “Llama 3”, which is required for any derivative
Clause 1.b.iii – Required Notice:
• Missing the following required text in a "NOTICE" file:
“Meta Llama 3 is licensed under the Meta Llama 3 Community License, Copyright © Meta Platforms, Inc. All Rights Reserved.”
Clause 1.iv – Acceptable Use Policy:
• No mention of Meta’s Acceptable Use Policy, which must be passed on to downstream users
Clause 2 – Additional Commercial Terms:
• No clarification about the 700M MAU (monthly active users) threshold — making commercial usage ambiguous
On the flip side, Apache-2.0 lets you:
• Use it commercially without asking for extra permission
• Sublicense and redistribute it under more flexible terms
• You don’t have to pass along any non-permissive terms or use restrictions from upstream
This creates a bit of a conflict because the LLaMA 3 license specifically says you can’t sublicense it under more flexible terms and requires downstream users to follow certain use restrictions, which Apache-2.0 doesn’t enforce.
So I'm thinking there might be a licensing conflict here that needs to be sorted out.
🔹 Suggestion:
1. To make sure everything aligns with the LLaMA 3 terms, you might want to tweak the licensing setup a bit, like:
• Maybe include a copy of the LLaMA 3 Community License in the repo or model card
• Include this notice in a “NOTICE” file or the docs:
> “Meta Llama 3 is licensed under the Meta Llama 3 Community License, Copyright © Meta Platforms, Inc. All Rights Reserved.”
• A “Built with Meta Llama 3” note somewhere in the model card could be helpful too
• Maybe a quick note about usage restrictions, especially for folks using it in commercial settings
• A statement clarifying that use of the model must comply with Meta’s Acceptable Use Policy
2. Or, we could just drop the Apache-2.0 tag and go with the LLaMA 3 Community License. This could clear up any confusion about redistribution rights and how people can use it downstream.
Hope this helps! Let me know if you have any questions or need more info.
Thanks for your attention!