## License incompatibility: Apache-2.0 License VS OpenRAIL++ License
Hi,I'd like to report a license conflict in dataautogpt3/ProteusSigma
. I noticed that this model was finetuned from stabilityai/stable-diffusion-xl-base-1.0
, but it's currently published under the Apache-2.0 license. After taking a look at the OpenRAIL++ Licenseβ a license that includes non-permissive terms such as use-based restrictions and attribution requirements. However, this derivative model is currently published under the Apache-2.0 license, which is very permissive and does not carry over those restrictions.
β οΈ Key conflicts with the OpenRAIL++ License:
Section III
4.Redistribution and Derivatives:
β’ Redistribution must include use-based restrictions (Attachment A), which Apache-2.0 does not require.
β’ Must provide a copy of the OpenRAIL++ license with any distribution β currently missing.
Attachment A β Use Restrictions:
β’ Prohibits specific uses (e.g., discrimination, surveillance, medical diagnosis, legal decision-making). These restrictions are not enforceable under Apache-2.0, which explicitly permits nearly any use.
On the other hand, Apache-2.0 allows:
β’ Sublicensing under different terms
β’ Unrestricted commercial use
β’ No requirement to pass down upstream ethical or use-based constraints
This creates a clear mismatch: OpenRAIL++ imposes enforceable use limitations and distribution conditions that cannot be removed, while Apache-2.0 explicitly permits those removals.
πΉ Suggestion:
To comply with OpenRAIL++ license terms, it might be helpful to:
β’ Include a copy of the OpenRAIL++ license in the repository or model card
β’ Add a notice that the model inherits ethical use restrictions from the upstream model:
β’ Mention that commercial use is restricted, and clarify what uses are not allowed (from Attachment A)
β’ Remove the Apache-2.0 license tag if the full model is not entirely under that license
This would help ensure downstream users are not misled into thinking the model is fully Apache-2.0 compliant, which it likely is not.
Hope this helps! π Let me know if you have any questions or need more info.
Thanks for your attention!