It’s not really relevant to this release specifically but it irks me that, in general, an “open weights model” is like an “open source machine code” version of Microsoft Windows. Yes, I guess I have open access to view the thing I am about to execute!
This Apple license is click wrap MIT with the rights, at least, to modify and redistribute the model itself. I suppose I should be grateful for that much openness, at least.
> Yes, I guess I have open access to view the thing I am about to execute!
Better to execute locally than to execute remotely where you can't change or modify any part of the model though. Open weights at least mean you can retrain or distill it, which is not analogous to a compiled executable that you can't (generally) modify.
I think you are looking at the code license, not the model license.
No, it's the model license. There's a second license for the code.
Of course, model weights almost certainly are not copyrightable so the license isn't enforceable anyway, at least in the US.
The EU and the UK are a different matter since they have sui generis database rights which seemingly allows individuals to own /dev/random.
Great analogy.
To extend the analogy, "closed source machine code" would be like conventional SaaS. There's an argument that shipping me a binary I can freely use is at least better than only providing SaaS.