Recently, Google introduced a family of open AI models called Gemma 3, which received widespread acclaim for its exceptional efficiency. However, numerous developers expressed concerns on X about the risks associated with commercial use due to Gemma 3’s licensing terms.

This issue is not unique to Gemma 3, as companies like Meta also use custom, non-standard licensing terms for their openly available models, creating legal challenges for businesses. Some firms, particularly smaller ones, are worried that Google and others could suddenly restrict their business by enforcing more stringent clauses.

# Challenges with Custom Licensing

Nick Vidal, head of community at the Open Source Initiative, stated, “The restrictive and inconsistent licensing of so-called ‘open’ AI models is creating significant uncertainty, particularly for commercial adoption. 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.”

Developers of open models have their reasons for releasing models under proprietary licenses instead of industry-standard options like Apache and MIT. For example, AI startup Cohere has clearly stated its intention to support scientific, but not commercial, work on top of its models.

However, the licenses for Gemma and Meta’s Llama have specific restrictions that limit the ways companies can use the models without fear of legal reprisal.

# License Restrictions

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. Additionally, companies with over 700 million monthly active users are not allowed to deploy Llama models without first obtaining a special, additional license.

Gemma’s license is generally less burdensome but grants Google the right to restrict usage of Gemma that Google believes is in violation of the company’s prohibited use policy or applicable laws and regulations.

# Impact on Commercial Adoption

These terms apply not only to the original Llama and Gemma models but also to models based on Llama or Gemma. In Gemma’s case, this includes models trained on synthetic data generated by Gemma.

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.” He noted that most companies have a set of approved licenses, such as Apache 2.0, and any custom license is a lot of trouble and money.

# Concerns Among Developers

Brand pointed out 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.

Han-Chung Lee, director of machine learning at Moody’s, and Eric Tramel, a staff applied scientist at AI startup Gretel, agree that custom licenses like those attached to Gemma and Llama make the models “not usable” in many commercial scenarios.

# Need for Open License Frameworks

Tramel expressed concerns about the potential for model-specific licenses to cause issues with model derivatives and distillation, leading to concerns about clawbacks. He fears that a model foundry could release 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.

Yacine Jernite, head of machine learning and society at AI startup Hugging Face, called on providers like Google to move to open license frameworks and collaborate more directly with users on broadly accepted terms.

# Conclusion

Vidal emphasized the urgent need for AI models that companies can freely integrate, modify, and share without fearing sudden license changes or legal ambiguity. He stated, “The current landscape of AI model licensing is riddled with confusion, restrictive terms, and misleading claims of openness. Instead of redefining ‘open’ to suit corporate interests, the AI industry should align with established open source principles to create a truly open ecosystem.”