> 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.
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.