I find it confusing to release weights under a source code license too as Apache 2.0 that is used for plenty of open models spends a lot of time talking about c

I find it confusing to release weights under a source code license too as Apache 2.0 that is used for plenty of open models spends a lot of time talking about code, which should be unrelated to weights (I am not a lawyer though). But perhaps one should look at weights as "firmware" necessary to run a model? I am not sure. Although I am getting tired to keep mentioning it at this point, LLaMa is not open by any reasonable definition though. It is available. But as a sibling points out, it is rude of Facebook to call it something it blatantly is not, even if it is more open than say Clos^WOpenAI's offerings. In addition, it is very rude towards the people behind Mistral, GPT-J, etc. who do honour the tradition of open science and open source to place your work both in your papers and marketing next to them. There is a great word to describe what Facebook is doing: appropriation. Neither is releasing LLaMa the way that Facebook does honouring their "commitment to open science" as its license also violates the principles of open science. This was objectively false when they stated it six or so months ago and even after OSI and many others calling them out they still have not adjusted their messaging and I am frankly considering them bad faith actors at this point. The best argument in favour of Facebook doing what they are doing is that their model is more open than the closed ones. Which is fair (pun not intended). But, calling your dog a cat because it is more akin to a cat than a fish is still misleading and rightfully surprises and upsets cat lovers, even if dogs are fine pets in their own right.