> Open-weights means weights are released under an open-source license.

According to who? From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_weights:

> Publishing these values allows others to download and use the model, while permission to modify, fine-tune or redistribute it depends on its license.

Those restrictions are definitely not compatible with the definition of open-source/FOSS. I think you have a much stricter view of what open-weights means than the industry.

"Open weights" is a correction that arose out of calling models whose weights were released under open-source licenses "open-source" before the OSI sold out. These companies trying to dilute the polite correction just like they tried to dilute "open-source" only reinforces my point.

There was an attempt to create an analogue of the OSI's Open-Source Definition that acknowledged the problems of merely releasing weights as "open-source". That project seems to have largely failed or fizzled, and "open weight" has come to be used mostly as a way of acknowledging that only the weights have been released under open-source terms.

This model of Meta's fails even that dramatically weakened standard.

This is just a series of dilutions by which giant corporations are trying (and apparently succeeding here on "hacker" news) to trade on the cachet of commitments they don't actually hold.