OpenSciLM

/

Llama-3.1_OpenScholar-8B

like 59

Follow

OpenSciLM 67

Hi,I'd like to report a conflict license in OpenSciLM/Llama-3.1_OpenScholar-8B. I noticed that this model was finetuned from meta-llama/Llama-3.1-8B, but it's currently published under the Apache-2.0 license. After taking a look at the LLaMA 3.1 Community License, 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 incompatibilities with LLaMA 3.1 Community License:

Clause 1.b.i – Redistribution and Use:
  •  No license file included (should contain the LLaMA 3.1 Community License)
  •  "Built with Llama" is not clearly indicated
  •  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:
    “Llama 3.1 is licensed under the Llama 3.1 Community License, Copyright © Meta Platforms, Inc. All Rights Reserved.”
    
Clause 1.iv – Acceptable Use Policy:
  •  Meta’s Acceptable Use Policy is not mentioned or passed along to users
  
Clause 2 – Sublicensing and Relicensing:
  •  LLaMA 3.1 license does not allow sublicensing under a more permissive license such as Apache-2.0
  •  The Apache-2.0 License permits nearly unrestricted commercial use, which contradicts Meta’s limits and conditions (e.g. commercial MAU threshold)```

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:


To resolve the mismatch, here are a few steps that might help bring things into alignment:

1. To make sure everything aligns with the LLaMA 3.1 terms, you might want to tweak the licensing setup a bit, like:

• Maybe include a copy of the LLaMA 3.1 Community License in the repo or model card

• Include this notice in a “NOTICE” file or the docs:

 > “Llama 3.1 is licensed under the Llama 3.1 Community License, Copyright © Meta Platforms, Inc. All Rights Reserved.”

• A “Built with LLaMA” 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. Maybe we can just drop the Apache-2.0 tag and going with the LLaMA 3.1 Community License. This approach may help reduce potential confusion about redistribution rights and downstream usage conditions.

Hope this helps! 😊 Let me know if you have any questions or need more info.



Thanks for your attention!