Comment by dcss_gardener
5 hours ago
Where did you get this definition of open weight and who else uses it? The weights are published. Open source is already its own more restrictive category. What would you prefer we call this kind of release?
"Weights available" does not seem to be in wide use and doesn't, to me, communicate anything different than "open weights."
"Source available" is already a common term for source code that is provided with a very restrictive license or under regular copyright.
I've also heard it used to describe projects that are open source by anyone's measure but have contribution or project governance requirements like for example sqlite.
"Source available" is definitely in much wider use than "weights available" but it's not that common and it's not used consistently at all in my experience.
Weights are different enough from source code I don't find the metaphor useful or compelling. I don't see any value in trying to apply it to a novel subdomain of software engineering, frankly.
>I've also heard it used to describe projects that are open source by anyone's measure but have contribution or project governance requirements like for example sqlite.
Anybody calling SQLite "source available" is mistaken. Are you sure they weren't confusing "source available" with "open core" (Open Source + proprietary add-ons)? SQLite's source code is public domain, which meets the Open Source Definition and is true Open Source. But they also sell proprietary add-ons to fund its development:
https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html
Honestly, I think "source available" is used pretty consistently, and if someone said "weights available" I would immediately understand what they mean.
No one calls SQLite "source available", and if they do, they're doing it more as a protest of their development model than being serious.
A license like GPL is very restrictive, but I wouldn't call it source available. Maybe I'm missing your point?
A well known example is Gitlab Enterprise - you can see the source code but (IANAL) you can't use it without paying them and any modifications you make become the property of Gitlab. I remember seeing similar terms around some of the proprietary Confluent Platform components.
https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab/-/blob/master/ee/LICENS...
2 replies →
I didn't make it up, I'm using OSI's definition. Pretty analogous to why BSL or SSPL aren't "open".
https://opensource.org/ai/open-weights
> I'm using OSI's definition
You shouldn't. The term existed in the community before they tried to prescriptively define it. They have no authority over the term.
OSI is not an authority on the topic, not more than anybody. Open Source as a concept predates its existence, and didn't even apply to LLM.
Then who is an authority on the topic? Or are you trying to make a common usage argument, in which case you have to somehow demonstrate that's the way people understand it?
1 reply →
It's the same distinction as "open source" vs "source available" (when speaking about source code). It's not that widely in use because few people in the LLM space are diligent enough with IP to make the distinction, but the concept is easily transferable.
I think the problem with this "open weights" thing is that it doesn't map well at all with "open source".
If you think about it the actual mapping is more like:
- closed weights -> closed-source web service (e.g. gmail)
- open weights -> closed-source but you get the binaries (e.g. Minecraft)
- Actually open model (with training data, training pipeline etc.) -> open source
True, they don't own the word open. Words mean what people agree they mean, and insisting on more expansive definitions of open got the ecosystem from restrictive licenses in the llama 2 and 3 days to most noteworthy models being MIT, Apache, or OpenMDW (permissive but specifically for model weights).
I believe there should be a way to distinguish this type of open-weight model from one that you can find hosted by someone else, such as Chinese models.
Isn’t this usually defined by “open” vs “free” ?
I think this is really splitting hairs, they just want to give people the ability to self-host (which is awesome) yet still make money off it for cloud based hosting.
But then again, I also always understood that startups want to prevent AWS from capitalizing on their source code as well and sympathize with Elastic, MongoDB, etc so perhaps I’m an outlier here.
Businesses should be able to release things to the public yet still be able to control who makes money off of it.
>Isn’t this usually defined by “open” vs “free” ?
No. In the context of software licensing, "open" vs. "free" is more a question of philosophy than any practical difference. The Free Software Definition and the Open Source Definition agree so closely that I can't think of any license that meets one but not the other. But the Free Software Foundation sees freedom as an end in itself, even if it requires sacrificing quality, while the Open Source Initiative sees freedom as a tool to be used to improve software quality.
Many of the Chinese models are not open weight. The larger Qwen models are a good example. I assumed I could use flash next however I wanted to, since it is easy to download and runs on low-wattage desktops, but nope.
Just because OpenAI ran roughshod over the broader software community's notion of "open" which once heavily implied free-as-in-software-not-beer, doesn't mean we need to continue this pattern.
Many industries had "source available" without the word "open" for decades, and that was a broadly understood term. "Weights available" would be a reasonable analogue.
For clarity, the Mistral model license is here: https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Mistral-Large-4-1T-A52B/raw...
> 2. If the Licensee or any of its affiliates operates a Model as a Service business, the Licensee must enter into a separate commercial license with Mistral before using the Model or its derivative works for any commercial purpose. The Licensee may contact Mistral, using this form: https://mistral.ai/contact/, to request a commercial license.
> "Model as a Service" means giving a third party access to the Model or its derivative works for inference or post-training by any means (for instance via API or hosted endpoints), in a manner that allows such third party to exercise meaningful control over the inputs, parameters, or training data. This does not include (a) end-user products with model capabilities solely embedded within specific features or harnesses, or (b) mere relaying of requests to models hosted by others.
"Meaningful control over the inputs" is so ambiguous as to be nearly meaningless. Does a model merely summarizing a user's submitted support tickets, give that user meaningful control over the inputs?
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate that Mistral needs to walk a fine line for its own sustainability, and that sustainability is a good thing! And I may just be an old person ranting at a cloud. But "open" used to mean something, back in my day!
Calling this open weight is misleading. That's why we had huge backlash when Redis, Elasticsearch, and Terraform went source-available, right?
Weight-available is a better adjective for this kind of licensing. Same for Qwen, GLM, Kimi, MiniMax, etc. If they really want to be open source, they should pick an OSI-approved license.