HKUSTAudio/Llasa-1B-Multilingual · ## 🚨License Conflict: LLaMA 3.2 vs CC BY-NC 4.0

Hi, I'd like to report a License Conflict in HKUSTAudio/Llasa-1B-Multilingual. I noticed this model was fine-tuned from meta-llama/Llama-3.2-1B-Instruct, which is released under the LLaMA 3.2 Community License. From what I can see, HKUSTAudio/Llasa-1B-Multilingual is currently licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0, and also includes additional usage restrictions (e.g., ethics/privacy disclaimers and local law compliance statements). That may raise some compliance questions, because the META LLAMA 3 COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT has strict requirements for redistribution, naming, and licensing that may not be compatible with more restrictive downstream terms.

⚠️ Key violations of LLaMA 3.2 license terms:

Clause 1.b.i – Redistribution and Use:
  • No license file included (should contain the META LLAMA 3 COMMUNITY LICENSE AGREEMENT)
  • "Built with Meta Llama 3" is not prominently displayed
  • 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:
    “Meta Llama 3 is licensed under the Meta Llama 3 Community License, Copyright © Meta Platforms, Inc. All Rights Reserved.”
Clause 1.iv – Acceptable Use Policy:
  • No mention of Meta’s Acceptable Use Policy, which must be passed on to downstream users
Clause 2 – Additional Commercial Terms:
  • No clarification about the 700M MAU (monthly active users) threshold — making commercial usage ambiguous

Meanwhile, CC BY-NC 4.0 introduces:

• Prohibitions on commercial use (NC = NonCommercial)
• Additional human-authored restrictions (e.g., ethics/privacy statements)
• Potential limitations on redistribution based on jurisdiction

Using a more restrictive license like CC BY-NC 4.0 on top of a LLaMA 3.2–licensed base model might violate the original license’s requirement that derivatives must not impose incompatible or conflicting terms. This could confuse downstream users about:

 • Whether redistribution is allowed
 • Whether the model complies with Meta’s terms
 • What usage is actually permitted (especially in research or startup settings)

🔹 Suggestions (just a friendly heads-up! ):

To help bring this in line with LLaMA 3.2’s licensing terms, it might be worth considering:

 • Including a copy of the LLaMA 3.2 license
 • Adding the required “NOTICE” file
 • If the intention is to restrict commercial use, it may be better to stick with LLaMA 3.2 only, which already has provisions regarding acceptable use and commercial thresholds (like the 700M MAU clause)

Thanks for your attention!