[teruakohatu]

> There is no obligation in open source to transitively open source all of the documentation / tools used to create the open source project.

Open source means open source code. Open weight means a binary file dump, not unlike an exe file. There is nothing open source about it.

Its like having a closed source text editor that censors certain words, and an open source text editor that censors certain words.

The latter can easily be recompiled, the former requires reverse engineering. Both may give you a license to use them freely.

[Alpha3031]

Per the OSD definition of source code, "the source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program." which means an argument could be made (as charcircuit is making) that the weights, being the preferred form to modify, are the source.

I do prefer open weights as being more precise (like, is it even really software that has source code in the first place?) but I feel like at this point the ship has sailed somewhat (though if this is something you're willing to spend your time arguing then... moral support I guess?)

[ciupicri]

You can also edit/patch binary executables, but no one says about that software that is open source.

[Muromec]

You can, but its not the first preference

[charcircuit]

I think you are failing to see how the weights are the preferred form of working with a model. It's like if I shared a png with others to use as a meme template. Even if I don't share the source code to photoshop other people can use that "binary file dump" to make derivative images of their own with it.