Licensing question
Assalamu Alaikum Brother Mustafa,
First — jazakAllah khair for building and sharing this model. May Allah Reward You For This!
I'm building Mualim.App, the best Quran and Hadith App/WebApp ever, and I want to use zipformer_p-quran for the tajwīd/recitation-correction feature. I've read the gated usage agreement carefully and want to make sure I fully respect it before shipping anything — rather than guess at the boundaries, I'd rather ask directly. Sorry for the long list, but I'd rather ask everything once than come back repeatedly.
Some context: my app has a free tier (unlimited reading, bookmarks, etc.) and I'm planning a separate paid tier for unrelated features (cloud sync, extra translations/tafsirs, offline audio packs). None of the paid features are the tajwīd/recitation model itself — but I want to check a few scenarios where the lines could blur, since your model would still be present somewhere in the app.
Free forever, on-device: The tajwīd correction feature itself (running your model fully on-device via WASM/ONNX, no server round-trip) stays free and unlimited for every user, forever, with no usage cap. Is this the intended use case — correct?
Unrelated paid features in the same app: If the app has a paid subscription for unrelated features (e.g., cross-device sync of bookmarks/notes, extra translations, offline audio downloads) — and the tajwīd correction feature stays free/uncapped per #1 — is that acceptable? Or does the mere presence of any paid tier anywhere in the app violate the agreement, even if the feature that uses your model is never paywalled?
Saving/storing correction results: If a user's own device saves their own correction history/reports locally (or syncs it via a paid cloud-sync feature that also syncs unrelated data like bookmarks) — is that OK, or does persisting/syncing your model's output (phoneme scores, mistake flags) count as monetizing the model's output once it touches a paid sync feature?
Cloud/server-side inference of your model: If I ran your model server-side instead of on-device (e.g., for devices too weak to run WASM locally) and charged users only enough to cover my exact hosting/inference cost (no profit margin) — is that permitted, or does any payment gate in front of your model's inference count as "placing it behind a paywall" regardless of margin?
A separate, different paid model: If I license/use a different, commercially-licensed ASR model server-side as a paid "pro" option (faster/more accurate, unrelated to your checkpoint), while your model remains the always-free on-device option — is that a clean separation in your view, or would you still consider that a violation because the app itself is monetized?
Attribution: What attribution do you require in-app / in a LICENSE or credits file? I want to make sure I add this correctly regardless of the above answers — right now I don't have this documented and want to fix that immediately.
Anything else: Is there any scenario involving monetization — direct or indirect — that you'd consider acceptable, or is the rule simply "no monetization of this app in any form, period," with no exceptions for unrelated features, cost-recovery, or infrastructure? I want the plainest possible answer so I build around it correctly rather than assume.
A commercial arrangement: I've seen in a few of your other model discussions that you're open to a separate written commercial arrangement for paid use ("please open a discussion"). I'd genuinely like to explore this rather than work around it — would you be willing to discuss terms (flat fee, revenue share, a one-time license, or whatever structure works for you) for commercial use of zipformer_p-quran in Mualim.App? If so, what would that look like on your end, and is there a preferred way to start that conversation (here, email, etc.)?
I'll fully comply with whatever you say — happy to keep the whole app free, drop the model, restructure the app, or work out a paid arrangement, whichever you're comfortable with. I just want clear guidance instead of guessing, especially since your terms explicitly ask that this be used only in ways that keep it free for people, which I respect and want to honor properly.
If it's easier, feel free to just reply with numbers + short answers (e.g. "1. yes, 2. no, 3-5. no, 6. see LICENSE file, 7. no exceptions").
JazakAllah khair for your time and for the work — the "for the sake of Allah" framing is one I take seriously, which is exactly why I'm asking before building rather than after.
Muhammad Saboor Hassan
Mualim.App
Wa alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullah, Muhammad.
You asked for plain answers, so here they are. I have also just unified the licence across all my
repositories to NPL-1.1, partly prompted by your questions, so every answer below is now backed by
the licence text rather than by my say-so.
1. Free forever, on-device, uncapped: yes. Exactly the intended use. Nothing further needed from me.
2. No. The licence does not say "do not charge for the tajwid feature". Section 3 now says it
explicitly: the no-profit condition applies to the app as a whole, not only to the feature that uses
the model. An application that charges its users for anything, even for features unrelated to the
model, is a revenue-generating product and may not include the model.
3. Follows from 2. A user's own device storing their own history is fine. Syncing it through a paid
feature is not, because the paid feature is the problem, not the syncing.
4. Permitted, in one specific shape. Section 5 allows Cost Recovery for a Hosted Service. If a
device genuinely cannot run the model, you may run it on that user's behalf and recover the actual,
documented compute you spend doing so, with no margin. They are paying for compute they consume, not
for access. Two conditions: the on-device path stays free and uncapped for everyone, and nobody may be
denied the feature for declining to pay. Cost Recovery explicitly does not cover development time,
effort, expertise, or a service fee.
5. No, and this is the one I would ask you to sit with. A free model as the free tier, with a paid
model as the "pro" tier, makes my model the acquisition funnel for your paid product. It brings the
users in so that the other one can be sold to them. That is monetisation at one remove, and it is
further from the intention than an honest paywall would be.
6. None required. This changed today, partly because you asked. NPL-1.1 removes the attribution
clause entirely: no credit, acknowledgement or mention of me is required anywhere, in any form. The
only thing you must carry is the LICENSE file itself, so the terms travel to whoever you share it with.
I do not want my name on it. I want the recitation corrected.
7. The plainest answer: no monetisation of the app, in any form, with exactly one exception:
recovering compute you spend on a user's behalf, at cost. Not unrelated features, not indirect revenue,
not tiers.
8. No. Not for a flat fee, not a revenue share, not a one-time licence, not at any price. Section 9
of NPL-1.1 now states that no commercial licence exists and none will be granted. You found the
opposite in another repository's README; that line was stale and I have removed it. Thank you for
surfacing it.
Now the part you did not ask for.
Read together, six of your eight questions are different routes to the same destination: a monetised
app with my model inside it. Unrelated tiers, synced outputs, a payment gate, a paid alternative model,
a licence fee. I do not doubt your sincerity, and asking beforehand puts you ahead of most. But the
shape of the questions tells me which answer you were hoping for, so let me remove the ambiguity
completely: there is no arrangement, no fee and no structure under which this model earns money for
anybody. Not for you, and not for me.
The reason is simple. The moment a price stands between these weights and someone learning to recite,
it stops reaching whoever cannot pay, and those are the people it exists for. I gave up my claim to be
paid for this. The licence asks you to give up yours. That is the whole bargain, and removing the
attribution requirement is me holding up my end: I take nothing from it, not even credit.
If Mualim.App stays free, you are welcome to the model today and you have my dua for it. If it needs to
be a business, build that business on a model you have properly licensed, and I will genuinely wish you
well with it.
بارك الله فيك، وأسأل الله أن يجعل عملك خالصًا لوجهه
Wa alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullah, Muhammad.
You asked for plain answers, so here they are. I have also just unified the licence across all my
repositories to NPL-1.1, partly prompted by your questions, so every answer below is now backed by
the licence text rather than by my say-so.1. Free forever, on-device, uncapped: yes. Exactly the intended use. Nothing further needed from me.
2. No. The licence does not say "do not charge for the tajwid feature". Section 3 now says it
explicitly: the no-profit condition applies to the app as a whole, not only to the feature that uses
the model. An application that charges its users for anything, even for features unrelated to the
model, is a revenue-generating product and may not include the model.3. Follows from 2. A user's own device storing their own history is fine. Syncing it through a paid
feature is not, because the paid feature is the problem, not the syncing.4. Permitted, in one specific shape. Section 5 allows Cost Recovery for a Hosted Service. If a
device genuinely cannot run the model, you may run it on that user's behalf and recover the actual,
documented compute you spend doing so, with no margin. They are paying for compute they consume, not
for access. Two conditions: the on-device path stays free and uncapped for everyone, and nobody may be
denied the feature for declining to pay. Cost Recovery explicitly does not cover development time,
effort, expertise, or a service fee.5. No, and this is the one I would ask you to sit with. A free model as the free tier, with a paid
model as the "pro" tier, makes my model the acquisition funnel for your paid product. It brings the
users in so that the other one can be sold to them. That is monetisation at one remove, and it is
further from the intention than an honest paywall would be.6. None required. This changed today, partly because you asked. NPL-1.1 removes the attribution
clause entirely: no credit, acknowledgement or mention of me is required anywhere, in any form. The
only thing you must carry is the LICENSE file itself, so the terms travel to whoever you share it with.
I do not want my name on it. I want the recitation corrected.7. The plainest answer: no monetisation of the app, in any form, with exactly one exception:
recovering compute you spend on a user's behalf, at cost. Not unrelated features, not indirect revenue,
not tiers.8. No. Not for a flat fee, not a revenue share, not a one-time licence, not at any price. Section 9
of NPL-1.1 now states that no commercial licence exists and none will be granted. You found the
opposite in another repository's README; that line was stale and I have removed it. Thank you for
surfacing it.Now the part you did not ask for.
Read together, six of your eight questions are different routes to the same destination: a monetised
app with my model inside it. Unrelated tiers, synced outputs, a payment gate, a paid alternative model,
a licence fee. I do not doubt your sincerity, and asking beforehand puts you ahead of most. But the
shape of the questions tells me which answer you were hoping for, so let me remove the ambiguity
completely: there is no arrangement, no fee and no structure under which this model earns money for
anybody. Not for you, and not for me.The reason is simple. The moment a price stands between these weights and someone learning to recite,
it stops reaching whoever cannot pay, and those are the people it exists for. I gave up my claim to be
paid for this. The licence asks you to give up yours. That is the whole bargain, and removing the
attribution requirement is me holding up my end: I take nothing from it, not even credit.If Mualim.App stays free, you are welcome to the model today and you have my dua for it. If it needs to
be a business, build that business on a model you have properly licensed, and I will genuinely wish you
well with it.بارك الله فيك، وأسأل الله أن يجعل عملك خالصًا لوجهه
The Best Professional Answer I've seen
Thanks my brother
May Allah Accept your work and your insisting that it is for the Sake of Allah