The models are open source, it’s never been a requirement for someone to document the entire process of creating something to be “open source”. Just sharing the source, in this case, the weights, meets the criteria. Software engineering’s obsession with precise terms is actually one of the things I’m glad is dying with ai automation.

> obsession with precise terms

They’re not really even being precise. The relevant software freedom, from the FSF is []

  The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Some might argue that without the training data you couldn’t do some classes of experiments to see how it works, say leave-one-out retraining. I’d argue things like that are not really about the model but about ML research or the class of models, which while interesting is not a free software pre-requisite.

[] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#four-freedoms

Model weights are literally a compressed blob of binary data. The end result of a compilation process.

The source is actually all training data, plus the software used for training, including some scripts or instructions to run the entire thing end to end on your own computer. That's what open source has always been about.

The weights are the output of a program, it's a binary. It's not source.