nitky

/

Llama-3.3-SuperSwallow-70B-Instruct-v0.1

like 2

Hi , I’d like to report a potential license compatibility issue in
nitky/Llama-3.3-SuperSwallow-70B-Instruct-v0.1. From what I can tell, this model appears to be a merged version that includes tokyotech-llm/Llama-3.1-Swallow-70B-Instruct-v0.1 as one of its components, which is licensed under the Gemma License.

However, the merged model is currently published under the LLaMA 3.3 Community License, which may not be fully compatible with the terms of the Gemma license. This could raise legal and compliance issues regarding redistribution and downstream usage.

⚠️ Key Potential Conflicts Between the Gemma License and LLaMA 3.3 License:

Gemma License Restrictions:
• Only permits use and modification for non-commercial research purposes
• Prohibits redistribution unless all components comply with Google's terms
• Requires clear attribution and license propagation for any derivatives
• Includes Google’s Acceptable Use Policy, which must be preserved

LLaMA 3.3 License:
• Requires use of the LLaMA 3.3 Community License exclusively
• Imposes Meta's Acceptable Use Policy
• Mandates a “NOTICE” file with exact attribution and license link
• Imposes downstream licensing constraints that are not easily reconciled with Gemma's

Conflict:
→ If LLaMA 3.3 license is applied globally to the merged model, it may remove or override critical obligations from the Gemma license — especially around redistribution and use-case restrictions.
→ Merged models must respect the **most restrictive** license among all base components.

🔹 Suggestions for Resolving

To ensure license compliance and clarity:

1. Acknowledge in the model card or README that the model merges components under the Gemma license
2. Include both the Gemma license and the LLaMA 3.3 license in the repository or model card
3. Add a NOTICE file with:
   • Attribution to both Meta (LLaMA 3.3) and Google (Gemma)
   • All required license texts and URLs
4. Clarify the scope of allowed usage:
   • If Gemma prohibits commercial use, that restriction should apply to the entire merged model
5. Consider using dual licensing tags or clarifying license scope for each merged component

Let me know if I misunderstood anything — happy to help clarify further!

Thanks for your attention!