Vikhrmodels

/

Vikhr-Gemma-2B-instruct

like 19

Follow

Vikhr models 634

Hi, I'd like to report a License Conflict in Vikhrmodels/Vikhr-Gemma-2B-instruct. I noticed this model was fintuned from google/gemma-2-2b-it, which is released under the Gemma license. From what I can see, Vikhrmodels/Vikhr-Gemma-2B-instruct 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:
  • Redistributing a derivative (like this one) requires including a copy of the Gemma license
  • Must include a "NOTICE" file with this statement:
    "Gemma is provided under and subject to the Gemma Terms of Use found at ai.google.dev/gemma/terms"
  • Must carry over the use restrictions from Section 3.2 (Google’s Prohibited Use Policy)
  • Any additional license terms (like Apache-2.0) 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 Gemma Terms of Use”

Meanwhile, Apache-2.0 allows:

• 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.

🔹 Suggestions (friendly ideas to help bring things in line! ):

1. To better align with Gemma’s license terms, it could help to revise the current license setup a bit. 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. It might be a good idea to remove the Apache-2.0 license tag if the model is strictly derived from Gemma — since Apache-2.0’s terms can conflict with Gemma’s restrictions. Switching to just the Gemma license could help avoid confusion for downstream users who want to stay compliant.

Thanks for your attention!