mervinpraison

/

Llama-3.1-8B-bnb-4bit-python

like 7

Hi, I'd like to report a License Conflict in mervinpraison/Llama-3.1-8B-bnb-4bit-python. I noticed that this model appears to be quantized
from unsloth/Meta-Llama-3.1-8B-bnb-4bit, while being published under the Apache-2.0 license. Given the terms outlined in the LLaMA 3.1 Community License, especially regarding redistribution, attribution, and naming, this combination of licenses could potentially lead to legal or usage misunderstandings.

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!