## License Missing: May Violate LLaMA 3.3 Community License
Hi,I'd like to report a missing license in Steelskull/L3.3-Electra-R1-70b. Since this model is fine-tuned from EVA-UNIT-01/EVA-LLaMA-3.33-70B-v0.0, which is licensed under the LLaMA 3.3 Community License, it’s expected to inherit and comply with the terms of that license.
Without an explicit license or the required notices, this could be seen as a violation of the LLaMA 3.3 license, which has specific requirements for redistribution, naming, and attribution. This is especially important now that multiple other models are building on top of your model — unclear licensing can create real uncertainty for downstream users about whether they’re allowed to legally use, modify, or share these derivatives.
⚠️ Key violations of LLaMA 3.3 Community License:
Clause 1.b.i – Redistribution and Use:
• ⚠️ No license file included (should contain the LLaMA 3.3 Community License)
• ⚠️ "Built with LLaMA" is not prominently displayed
• ⚠️ Model name does not begin with “Llama”, which is required for any derivative
Clause 1.iii – Required Notice:
• ⚠️ Missing the following required text in a "NOTICE" file:
“Llama 3.3 is licensed under the Llama 3.3 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
Without a license:
• Users technically have no legal right to use, modify, or redistribute the model
• Any model depending on this one may unknowingly inherit unclear or non-compliant legal status
• The absence of the LLaMA license and required notices puts both the author and downstream users at risk of violating Meta’s terms
So I'm thinking there might be a licensing conflict here that needs to be sorted out.
🔹 Suggestion:
1. Maybe include a copy of the LLaMA 3.3 Community License in the repo or model card
2. Add a "NOTICE" file with the required attribution text
3. If it makes sense, consider renaming the model to start with “LLaMA”
4.A “Built with LLaMA” note somewhere in the model card could be helpful too
5.And maybe a quick note about usage restrictions, especially for folks using it in commercial settings
These may help ensure the license is clear so that other developers and researchers can use it safely and with confidence. 😊 If I misunderstood anything, please let me know!
Thanks for your attention!
Oh interesting! I appreciate the heads up the license must have not been transferred over.
I've adopted the modified eva-llama3.3 license as I've used their model.
Key additions to L3.3 License:
- Infermatic Inc, any of its employees or paid associates cannot utilize, distribute, download, or otherwise make use of EVA models or its derivative's for any commercial purpose.
For the name, it's been widely adopted by the Dev community to use the short hand L3.3, L3.2, L3.1, L3 or Llama interchangeably but ill see if I can find clarification on this.
Thank you for notifying!
Thanks so much for the quick and thoughtful reply! Really appreciate you taking the time to update the license. 😊
Noticed the extra clause you added about Infermatic Inc — totally get the intention there! Just a quick heads-up though: since the LLaMA 3.3 license expects downstream derivatives to stick to the same terms, adding new restrictions might create some conflict with the original license. Probably worth giving it a second look, just to be safe. 😄
And yeah, totally with you on the whole “L3.3” shorthand — I've seen that floating around a lot too! Meta’s license still technically asks for “LLaMA” at the start of the model name, but if you’re already checking into that, sounds good.
Appreciate you being so open about this — it’s great to see folks engaging thoughtfully with licensing stuff! 🙌 Happy to help however I can — and it’s great to see so many devs building cool stuff off this base!
Thanks so much for the quick and thoughtful reply! Really appreciate you taking the time to update the license. 😊
No prob! thanks for bringing it to my attention!
Noticed the extra clause you added about Infermatic Inc — totally get the intention there! Just a quick heads-up though: since the LLaMA 3.3 license expects downstream derivatives to stick to the same terms, adding >new restrictions might create some conflict with the original license. Probably worth giving it a second look, just to be safe. 😄
Ill double check on this 👍
Appreciate you being so open about this — it’s great to see folks engaging thoughtfully with licensing stuff! 🙌 Happy to help however I can — and it’s great to see so many devs building cool stuff off this base!
No prob! Most of us just want the community to succeed as much as possible.
Totally agree — love seeing that mindset 🙌
Really appreciate you taking the time to dig into this, and super glad the convo’s been helpful. Licensing stuff can get tricky fast, but the fact that we can talk through it like this is what makes the community awesome.
Looking forward to seeing what you build next! 🚀 Let me know if I can ever help again.