I don't think this is a problem, is not a GPL licensed model isn't it?

Problem is that it is illegal and you drive users to be illegal too!

You cannot re-license it. Do you have written permission from original copyright holders?

https://fossa.com/blog/open-source-licenses-101-apache-license-2-0/

Anyone who uses open source software licensed under Apache 2.0 must include the following in their copy of the code, whether they have modified it or not:

The original copyright notice
A copy of the license itself
If applicable, a statement of any significant changes made to the original code
A copy of the NOTICE file with attribution notes (if the original library has one)
The third requirement listed above is a major differentiator between the Apache License 2.0 and other permissive licenses. If you make any major modifications to the licensed code, you must disclose those changes in any updated version that you distribute.

However, you do not need to release the modified code under Apache 2.0. Simply including any modification notifications is enough to comply with the license terms.

Disclaimer: I'm might be wrong, don't take legal advice from me

Does Apache 2.0 Allow Relicensing?

The Apache 2.0 license itself does not contain any provisions that explicitly allow or prohibit relicensing of the original work by downstream users. However, there are some important considerations regarding relicensing with Apache 2.0 software:

1. Original Work: The copyright holder of the original Apache 2.0-licensed software can always relicense it under different terms, as they own the copyright.

2. Modified Versions: Anyone who modifies Apache 2.0-licensed code can only distribute their modifications under Apache 2.0 (or comply with the license's terms), unless they get permission from all copyright holders.

3. Combination with Other Code: When Apache 2.0 code is combined with code under other licenses, the resulting work may need to comply with all applicable licenses. Some licenses may impose additional restrictions that affect relicensing possibilities.

4. No Copyleft: Unlike GPL, Apache 2.0 is a permissive license that doesn't require derivative works to use the same license, but it doesn't automatically grant relicensing rights either.

In summary, you cannot unilaterally relicense someone else's Apache 2.0-licensed code, but you can create derivative works that combine it with other code under different licensing terms, provided you comply with all applicable license requirements.

Isn't this model fall under derivative?

Isn't this model fall under derivative?

Of course, yes, does that change something in your opinion? Nobody can the license it that because the license doesn't allow Realizing it must be the Apache 2.0

Even if I now download it because it is derived from the Apache 2.0 licensed model. The same license applies they cannot put a new license and I don't need to follow it

@JLouisBiz No, I haven't changed. Isn't there lot of Apache 2.0 license software/application that get forked and turned into proprietary?

The problem is, the LLM that you use, might hallucinate. Maybe it doesn't consider about LLM weight? Because the source isn't there anymore after some training.
Edit: well you can do lora extraction to get what's changed within the model

What I understand about apache 2.0 is you can add your own license for your modified part on top of the original software. But the original software still Apache 2.0. basically the original software part from the modified software(proprietary or not) is still free software.

Like hypothetically there is kernel called Linup with Apache 2.0 license.

I need to add driver, and other firmware which proprietary.

I call this kernel Lunip. Lunip is proprietary.

I need to tell what are the changes and credit to the original software.

I don't need to publish my driver and firmware under the apache 2.0 license.

I don't do relicense of the original source, but I changed the full software into proprietary because of my modification.