License clarification for SenseVoice-Small weights at a fixed revision (ONNX redistribution)

ピン留めされた SenseVoice-Small と ONNX の再配布リビジョンから始め、次にそれらのモデルメタデータと LICENSE の内容を FunASR のバージョン管理された MODEL_LICENSE と比較します。プロジェクトの先例について、関連する issue #3454 と #3458 を確認します。メンテナーが適用される条件を明確化するか、ライセンステキストを含む不変のリビジョンを公開すれば完了です。

Hello FunASR maintainers,

I am trying to establish what licence governs the SenseVoice-Small weights. This is a
licensing question only — no technical support needed.

The artefacts are pinned below so that an answer can be verifiable rather than general.

The artefacts

Why the current metadata does not settle it

1. The model card at that revision declares license: other, license_name: model-license,
   and license_link: https://github.com/modelscope/FunASR/blob/main/MODEL_LICENSE. That
   link points at a branch, not a commit, so it does not fix which text applies.
2. The ONNX redistribution above ships a LICENSE whose entire content is
   Ref to https://github.com/modelscope/FunASR?tab=readme-ov-file#license — a pointer to
   a README section, not to a licence file or a commit.
3. MODEL_LICENSE is versioned (currently v1.1) and amends itself: "The revised
   agreement will be published in the official repository … and will take effect
   automatically." With an unpinned link, a downstream user cannot establish which
   version they accepted.
4. §2.1 grants "free to use, copy, modify, and share" with no commercial carve-out, while
   the following paragraph says the software "is provided for reference and learning
   purposes only". I cannot tell from the text whether that phrase limits the scope of the
   grant or is part of the liability disclaimer that surrounds it.

Questions

1. For the pinned revision above, is MODEL_LICENSE v1.1 the applicable licence for
   the weight files, and does it cover model.int8.onnx and tokens.txt as listed?
2. Does "provided for reference and learning purposes only" limit permitted use, or is it
   part of the disclaimer of warranty? Specifically: is commercial use permitted?
3. Does the agreement permit redistributing the weight files — for example bundled
   inside software delivered to end users — and if so, what satisfies §2.2's "retain
   relevant model names"?
4. Is running the model as a service that returns only recognition results, never the
   weights, treated differently from redistributing them?
5. Are format conversion and quantisation derivative works under this agreement, and
   are they permitted?
6. Does the automatic-amendment clause apply retroactively to a copy obtained under v1.1,
   or do the terms accepted at download time continue to govern that copy?
7. Are there any obligations or attribution requirements arising from the training data
   that are not stated in MODEL_LICENSE?

A suggested resolution

#3454 was resolved by cutting a new
immutable revision containing an actual licence file, tagged apache-2.0-20260804, rather
than by rewriting history. The same approach would work here: a pinned revision of the
SenseVoice-Small weights that carries the applicable licence text would let downstream
users verify their position without having to ask.

#3458 raises the same structural
question for four other models and is still open.

Thank you for the clear position taken in #3454 — that the code repository's licence does
not automatically cover model weights — which is what prompted me to ask precisely rather
than assume.