The Confusing World of AI Model Licensing
Restrictive Licenses Pose Challenges for Commercial Adoption
This week, Google released a family of open AI models, Gemma 3, which garnered praise for their impressive efficiency. However, as developers lamented on X, Gemma 3’s license makes commercial use of the models a risky proposition.
A Problem Not Unique to Gemma 3
Companies like Meta also apply custom, non-standard licensing terms to their openly available models, presenting legal challenges for companies. Some firms, especially smaller operations, worry that Google and others could "pull the rug" on their business by asserting the more onerous clauses.
Uncertainty and Inconsistency
"The restrictive and inconsistent licensing of so-called ‘open’ AI models is creating significant uncertainty, particularly for commercial adoption," said Nick Vidal, head of community at the Open Source Initiative. "While these models are marketed as open, the actual terms impose various legal and practical hurdles that deter businesses from integrating them into their products or services."
Why Custom Licenses are Chosen
Open model developers have their reasons for releasing models under proprietary licenses as opposed to industry-standard options like Apache and MIT. AI startup Cohere, for example, has been clear about its intent to support scientific — but not commercial — work on top of its models.
Restrictions in Gemma and Meta’s Llama Licenses
But Gemma and Meta’s Llama licenses in particular have restrictions that limit the ways companies can use the models without fear of legal reprisal. Meta, for instance, prohibits developers from using the "output or results" of Llama 3 models to improve any model besides Llama 3 or "derivative works." It also prevents companies with over 700 million monthly active users from deploying Llama models without first obtaining a special, additional license.
Gemma’s License
Gemma’s license is generally less burdensome. However, it does grant Google the right to "restrict (remotely or otherwise) usage" of Gemma that Google believes is in violation of the company’s prohibited use policy or "applicable laws and regulations."
Implications
These terms don’t just apply to the original Llama and Gemma models. Models based on Llama or Gemma must also adhere to the Llama and Gemma licenses, respectively. In Gemma’s case, that includes models trained on synthetic data generated by Gemma.
A "Not-So-Open" Source
Florian Brand, a research assistant at the German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, believes that licenses like Gemma and Llama’s "cannot reasonably be called ‘open source’." "Most companies have a set of approved licenses, such as Apache 2.0, so any custom license is a lot of trouble and money," Brand said. "Small companies without legal teams or money for lawyers will stick to models with standard licenses."
Impact on the AI Ecosystem
Brand noted that AI model developers with custom licenses, like Google, haven’t aggressively enforced their terms yet. However, the threat is often enough to deter adoption, he added. "These restrictions have an impact on the AI ecosystem — even on AI researchers like me," said Brand.
Concerns from Industry Experts
Han-Chung Lee, director of machine learning at Moody’s, agrees that custom licenses like those attached to Gemma and Llama make the models "not usable" in many commercial scenarios. So does Eric Tramel, a staff applied scientist at AI startup Gretel. "Model-specific licenses make specific carve-outs for model derivatives and distillation, which causes concern about clawbacks," Tramel said.
Fear of Legal Reprisal
The scenario that deployers most fear, Tramel said, is that the models are a trojan horse of sorts. "A model foundry can put out [open] models, wait to see what business cases develop using those models, and then strong-arm their way into successful verticals by either extortion or lawfare," he said.
Conclusion
FAQs
Q: Why do AI model developers choose custom licenses over industry-standard options?
A: Open model developers release models under proprietary licenses to support scientific work, but not commercial work.
Q: What are the implications of Gemma and Llama’s licenses?
A: These licenses limit the ways companies can use the models without fear of legal reprisal, and restrict the use of models based on Llama or Gemma.
Q: What is the impact of these restrictions on the AI ecosystem?
A: These restrictions create uncertainty, deter adoption, and potentially stifle innovation in the AI industry.
Q: What is the solution?
A: The AI industry should align with established open source principles to create a truly open ecosystem.
