Exactly. I wish people would just stop saying "open source" regarding models. Even "open weight" is disingenuous. "self-hostable" would be more honest.

▲

embedding-shape 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a gradient almost, with some steps. So far, I think you could categorize every single released so far as one of:

- Proprietary - No access beyond remote endpoints

- Downloadable - You can run it, but there are restrictions and training data/code isn't public and/or under FOSS license, nor are the weights under a FOSS license

- Open weights - The weights are under a FOSS license and downloadable without restrictions, but not all of training code/data is public or under a FOSS license

- Open source - The model architecture, weights, training code and data are all under a FOSS license, and you can freely download and use them without any restrictions

Few models hit the mark for "open source model", many models people call "open weights" would go under "downloadable" here, which personally I think would be accurate.

▲

mrob 3 hours ago | parent [-]

"Downloadable" should be "weights available" by analogy to "source available". K3 is weights available because it includes usage restrictions. K2.6 is open weights, because the only restriction is a weaker version of the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause", which is accepted as FOSS.

	▲	embedding-shape 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah, thanks, "Weights available" does sound much better than "Downloadable", I agree.