dnotitia/Llama-DNA-1.0-8B-Instruct · 🚨License Conflict: LLaMA 3.1 vs CC BY-NC 4.0

Hi, I'd like to report a License Conflict in dnotitia/Llama-DNA-1.0-8B-Instruct. I noticed this model was fine-tuned from meta-llama/Llama-3.1-8B, which is released under the LLaMA 3.1 Community License. From what I can see, dnotitia/Llama-DNA-1.0-8B-Instruct 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 3.1 license has strict requirements for redistribution, naming, and licensing that may not be compatible with more restrictive downstream terms.

⚠️ 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 MIT
  •  The MIT License permits nearly unrestricted commercial use, which contradicts Meta’s limits and conditions (e.g. commercial MAU threshold)

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 3.1–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)

🔹 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
  
2.2. Maybe we can just drop the CC BY-NC 4.0 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!