Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm not at all disagreeing with you about calling these models "open source". They mostly aren't and we should stop conflating the two things.


I think using the term "open" at all in relation to these models is a misnomer. Much in the same way we've spent a lot of time and effort distinguishing "open source" from "source available"

Perhaps instead of "Open weight model" it should be "Weights available model"


Definitely, but there's also a distinction between "weights available" and "you can do stuff with those weights". There are models you can download but the license prohibits redistribution, fine-tuning, etc. The earlier Gemma models had license encumbrances, for instance, that Gemma 4 do not.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: