"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.
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.