Open-weights means weights are released under an open-source license.
I would, contra the OSI, not consider the model to be open-source even if the weights were under an open-source license. But that is the minimum condition under which it could be considered open-weight.
> Publishing these values allows others to download and use the model, while permission to modify, fine-tune or redistribute it depends on its license.
Those restrictions are definitely not compatible with the definition of open-source/FOSS. I think you have a much stricter view of what open-weights means than the industry.
"Open weights" is a correction that arose out of calling models whose weights were released under open-source licenses "open-source" before the OSI sold out. These companies trying to dilute the polite correction just like they tried to dilute "open-source" only reinforces my point.
There was an attempt to create an analogue of the OSI's Open-Source Definition that acknowledged the problems of merely releasing weights as "open-source". That project seems to have largely failed or fizzled, and "open weight" has come to be used mostly as a way of acknowledging that only the weights have been released under open-source terms.
This model of Meta's fails even that dramatically weakened standard.
This is just a series of dilutions by which giant corporations are trying (and apparently succeeding here on "hacker" news) to trade on the cachet of commitments they don't actually hold.
But it compares itself to Qwen (Apache 2), GLM (MIT), Beam (Apache 2), Inklink (Apache 2)...
Although to be fair, Kimi contains an identical carve out.
Both GLM-5.3 and Qwen 3.8 max have carve outs for commercial use above a certain threshold.
Open-weights means weights are released under an open-source license.
I would, contra the OSI, not consider the model to be open-source even if the weights were under an open-source license. But that is the minimum condition under which it could be considered open-weight.
> Open-weights means weights are released under an open-source license.
According to who? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_weights:
> Publishing these values allows others to download and use the model, while permission to modify, fine-tune or redistribute it depends on its license.
Those restrictions are definitely not compatible with the definition of open-source/FOSS. I think you have a much stricter view of what open-weights means than the industry.
"Open weights" is a correction that arose out of calling models whose weights were released under open-source licenses "open-source" before the OSI sold out. These companies trying to dilute the polite correction just like they tried to dilute "open-source" only reinforces my point.
There was an attempt to create an analogue of the OSI's Open-Source Definition that acknowledged the problems of merely releasing weights as "open-source". That project seems to have largely failed or fizzled, and "open weight" has come to be used mostly as a way of acknowledging that only the weights have been released under open-source terms.
This model of Meta's fails even that dramatically weakened standard.
This is just a series of dilutions by which giant corporations are trying (and apparently succeeding here on "hacker" news) to trade on the cachet of commitments they don't actually hold.
2 replies →