> Great to see open weights (if not open source)

The insistence of naming it open weights as opposed to open source is getting ridiculous, and it's both irrelevant (i.e. no one cares in practice) and factually incorrect.

Weights are source in language models. Apache defines source as ""Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications". That is precisely what's happening here. Everyone is using the preferred form for making modifications to these models (including the model creators themselves). A model is "created" at init time, and then "trained" by modifying the weights.

All these models are open source. What's not open sourced (with qwen et all) is the training code. So open source model, no training code. And that's ok. There are labs that release those as well. Apertus and Olmo series come with open source models, open source training and open datasets. Nemotron comes with open source models, open source training and some open datasets, while others are not published. And that's ok too.

The fact that you see all these models being modified (from AR completion models to "decision models") and re-released should be all the proof you need. That's what a license offers you. The right to inspect, run, modify and re-release a model. A license cannot (and never did) give you any other rights. OpEnWeIgHtS is silly.

> Weights are source in language models.

Weights are source in the same way as any x86 binary is source.

You easily modify a x86 binary and change behaviour or examine the machine code instructions. You probably are not aware how easy it is to change the behaviour of a binary executable.

I mean I don't have a strong opinion but if I used the phrase open source models there'd be 5 comments going in the other direction.

I'm happy to have and be able to serve these models and see the ecosystem thrive. And lots of open innovation is outside of weights anyway as DeepSeek repeatedly shows.

You used the right term. I don't know what the parent commenter is on about.

Open source has historically meant you could download the source and build your own binary. The appropriate analogue here, IMHO, to the build->binary process is training->weights.

> OpEnWeIgHtS is silly.

Dictionary.com defines source as:

> any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin.