## Incompatible license: Apache-2.0 License is Incompatible with Gemma License
Hi, I'd like to report a License Conflict in DavidAU/Gemma-3-12b-it-MAX-HORROR-Imatrix-GGUF
. I noticed this model was quantized from google/gemma-3-12b-it
, which is released under the Gemma license. From what I can see, DavidAU/Gemma-3-12b-it-MAX-HORROR-Imatrix-GGUF
appears to be incompatible with Gemma’s clauses — especially regarding redistribution, sublicensing, and commercial use.
⚠️ Key violations of Gemma license:
Section 3.1 – Distribution and Redistribution:
• Redistributing a derivative (like this one) requires including a copy of the Gemma license
• Must include a "NOTICE" file with this statement:
"Gemma is provided under and subject to the Gemma Terms of Use found at ai.google.dev/gemma/terms"
• Must carry over the use restrictions from Section 3.2 (Google’s Prohibited Use Policy)
• Any additional license terms (like Apache-2.0) must NOT conflict with the Gemma License
Section 3.2 – Use Restrictions:
• Must not use the model for any prohibited purposes
• Must comply with applicable laws and Google’s Prohibited Use Policy
Section 2.2 – Use Terms:
• Usage is only allowed “in accordance with the Gemma Terms of Use”
Meanwhile, Apache-2.0 allows:
• Sublicensing and redistribution under permissive terms
• No requirement to propagate upstream non-permissive terms or use restrictions
This creates a conflict because Gemma’s license explicitly prohibits sublicensing under more permissive terms and requires downstream users to inherit specific use restrictions — something Apache-2.0 does not enforce.
So I'm thinking there might be a licensing conflict here that needs to be sorted out.
🔹 Suggestions (friendly ideas to help bring things in line! 😊):
1. To better align with Gemma’s license terms, it could help to revise the current license setup a bit. For example:
- Include a full copy of the Gemma License in the repository or model card
-Add a required "NOTICE" file with this statement:
“Gemma is provided under and subject to the Gemma Terms of Use found at ai.google.dev/gemma/terms”
-Making it clear in the model card that this is a derivative of a Gemma model, and that it inherits the same use restrictions (e.g., no commercial use, no sublicensing, etc.)
2. It might be a good idea to remove the Apache-2.0 license tag if the model is strictly derived from Gemma — since Apache-2.0’s terms can conflict with Gemma’s restrictions. Switching to just the Gemma license could help avoid confusion for downstream users who want to stay compliant.
Thanks for your attention!
Hi:
Thank you for heads up ; Note that these are quants using Imatrix - not a fine tune.
I have removed the Apache License and embedded the Gemma one.
Thanks
Ah, I see — thanks for the clarification! I may have misunderstood the relationship between the models earlier — apologies for the mix-up! 😅
Just out of curiosity, in your experience, does the distinction between fine-tuning and quantization affect how the original license applies?
Thanks again for your thoughtful response and for updating the license so promptly — really appreciate it! 🙌
Sorry, I can not answer that one -;
That is a question for a qualified lawyer and someone versed in the nuances of license itself.
Got it — really appreciate your transparency.
If you ever come across any insights or resources on that front, I’d love to hear about them!