Parent poster is technically right - open “source” implies the source used to make something is open. The model source is training data and code, not just weights.
replyBut the reality is, the weights are a useful artifact that you can use to create derivative works. So, dismissing it as a photoshop binary is as technically wrong as calling it open source.
Countries that aren’t competitive need access to training datasets so that they may train their own similarly capable models and be sure of the inputs. Governments cannot blindly trust open weight models from China and the US.
replySo windows is open source because the binaries are a lossy compression of the original source?
replyWeights are not binary. A model is created at init time, with random values. After that, it is being modified using data. The key point is that the labs modify the models "as weights". That means that weights are the intended / preferred way of modifying a model. Which, coincidentally, matches the definition of source in Apache 2.0. There is no "higher level" place where editing takes place. It all happens in weight space. Through the license you get the same rights as the lab that created it: view, inspect, run, modify, re-release. That's it. That's the only thing a license can grant you.
replyThe rest is semantics, misunderstandings, and FUD. A model released under an open source license is open source. Training data is lab knowhow / IP. Which, historically, has never been required for any open source release.