soob3123

/

amoral-gemma3-12B-v2

like 40

Hi, I'd like to report a License Conflict in soob3123/amoral-gemma3-12B-v2. I noticed this model was fine-tuned from google/gemma-3-12b-it, which is released under the Gemma license. From what I can see, soob3123/amoral-gemma3-12B-v2 appears to be incompatible with Gemma’s clauses — especially regarding redistribution, sublicensing, and commercial use.

⚠️ Key violations of Gemma license:

Section 3.1 – Distribution and Redistribution:
  • Must include a copy of the Gemma License when distributing any derivative
  • Must provide a "NOTICE" file with the text:
    "Gemma is provided under and subject to the Gemma Terms of Use found at ai.google.dev/gemma/terms"
  • Must pass along the use restrictions from Section 3.2 as enforceable terms
  • Any additional license terms (like CC-BY) must NOT conflict with the Gemma License

Section 3.2 – Use Restrictions:
  • Must not use the model for any prohibited purposes
  • Must comply with applicable laws and Google’s Prohibited Use Policy

Section 2.2 – Use Terms:
  • Usage is only allowed “in accordance with the terms of this Agreement”

Meanwhile, Apache-2.0 allows:

• Commercial use without additional authorization
• Sublicensing and redistribution under permissive terms
• No requirement to propagate upstream non-permissive terms or use restrictions

This creates a conflict because Gemma’s license explicitly prohibits sublicensing under more permissive terms and requires downstream users to inherit specific use restrictions — something Apache-2.0 does not enforce.

So I'm thinking there might be a licensing conflict here that needs to be sorted out.

🔹 Suggestion:

1. To align with Gemma’s terms, it would be great to revise the licensing structure, for example:

• Include a full copy of the Gemma License in the repository or model card

• Add a required "NOTICE" file with this statement:

  “Gemma is provided under and subject to the Gemma Terms of Use found at ai.google.dev/gemma/terms”

• Making it clear in the model card that this is a derivative of a Gemma model, and that it inherits the same use restrictions (e.g., no commercial use, no sublicensing, etc.)

2. Maybe we can just drop the Apache-2.0 tag and going with the Gemma License. This approach may help reduce potential confusion about redistribution rights and downstream usage conditions.

Thanks for your attention!