[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

I would argue that while technically correct, it is not what most people really care. What they care about are the following:

1. Can I download it?

2. Can I run it on my hardware?

3. Can I modify it?

4. Can I share my modifications with others?

If those questions are in the affirmative, then I think most people consider it open enough, and it is a huge step for freedom compared to the models such as OpenAI.

[mgreg]

It's a great observation. People simply want their free stuff.

The potential challenge arises in the future. Today's models will probably look weak compared to models we'll have in 1, 3 or 10 years which means that today's models will likely be irrelevant in years hence. Every competitive "open" model today is tied closely to a controlling organization weather it's Meta, Mistral.AI, TII, 01.AI, etc.

If they simply choose not to publish the next iteration of their model and follow OpenAI's path that's the end of the line.

A truly open model could have some life beyond that of its original developer/organization. Of course it would still take great talent, updated datasets, and serious access to compute to keep a model moving forward and developing but if this is done in the "open" community then we'd have some guarantee for the future.

Imagine if Linux was actually owned by a for-profit corporation and they could simply choose not to release a future version AND it was not possible for another organization to fork and carry on "open" Linux?

[camgunz]

Some people want more than that, e.g. they want to fix their printer but the driver is closed source, so they start the GNU project and the broader free software movement, responsible for almost all software innovation for decades.

[PeterisP]

The #3 is an issue. If I get a binary of some software with a permissive license, I technically could patch that binary to modify some functionality, but I'd rather really like to have the source code instead.

Similarly, if I have a LLM model with a permissive license, I technically could fine-tune it to modify its behavior, but for some kinds of modifications I'd really rather re-run (parts of) the training differently.

[ivan_gammel]

„Can it be trusted?“ is the question many people will care about, when the awareness of the risks becomes higher. If this question can be answered without publishing the source, fine, but that would probably mean that publisher must be liable for damages from model output.