The analogy falls apart very quickly. Without the training data, your modifications amount to virtually nothing compared to what these "versions" are, and the idea that you can maintain and improve on these models without the continual support of the company that owns the training data AND harnesses AND in general build instructions is not very credible. This is why it's not rare that they "dump" old versions as freeware but at some point switch to not distributing them, and mostly get away with it. As this is really not open, and the threat of an effective fork is therefore non-existent, the pressure for any one who has released freeware models to "go SaaS" is too high.

While if "Open Office" switches to a more problematic license at some point, the existing source has all you need for an organization to support the project without regard to the original company (this has happened already!). If Qwen decides to stop distributing models for download, you're basically stuck, _even_ if you have unlimited resources, it's not clear how the released weights help you; your best bet is to start almost from scratch. This has also happened...

These models are not "Open" by any definition of the word. It is just freely redistributable. You can justify yourself in whatever way you want re a cowboy approach to copyright, but this doesn't change the fact that this is not open, and has almost none of the benefits of open, and therefore it is a huge abuse of the word "Open".

Ironically about the only thing that is copyrightable here is the sum of the training data (possibly) _AND_ the software used to build the model (most definitely). The model itself most likely isn't (databases are not copyrightable), which makes it even more pointless to abuse the word "open" for it. All the value is in the former two.