Also open-weights comes in several flavors -- there is "restricted" open-weights like Mistral's research license that prohibits most use cases (most importantly, commercial applications), then there are licenses like Llama's or DeepSeek's with some limitations, and then there are some Apache 2.0 or MIT licensed model weights.
Has it been established if the weights can even be copyrighted? My impression has been that AI companies want to have their cake and it it too, on one hand they argue that the models are more like a database in a search engine, hence are not violating copyright of the data they have been trained with, but on the other hand they argue they meet the threshold that they are copyrightable in their own right.
So it seems to me that it's at least dubious if those restricted licences can be enforced (that said you likely need deep pockets to defend yourself from a lawsuit)
Then those should not be considered “open” in any real sense—when we say “open source,” we’re talking about the four freedoms (more or less—cf. the negligible difference between OSI and FSF definitions).
So when we apply the same principles to another category, such as weights, we should not call things “open” that don’t grant those same freedoms. In the case of this research license, Freedom 0 at least is not maintained. Therefore, the weights aren’t open, and to call them “open” would be to indeed dilute the meaning of open qua open source.
Wow. Your link is frustrating because I thought everything was under the
MIT license. Why did people claim it is MIT licensed if they sneaked in this additional license?
I can't be 100% certain, but I think the good news is: no. There seem to be the exact same number of safetensor files for both, and AFAICT the file sizes are identical.
