What 'Open' Means
For most of this guide, models were something you read about. Then they became files you could download. That change — the spread of open weights — moved who can build, who pays, and who is allowed to check the work. But “open” is used loosely, so let us be precise before we look at who is doing it.
The ladder
Weights are not source
In software, open source means you can rebuild the program from its source code. For a model, the “source” is not the weights — it is the data and the recipe that produced them. Weights let you use a model. They do not let you rebuild it, audit what it was trained on, or verify a safety claim about it.
That mismatch is the whole argument. Software licences were written for code, where handing over the source is enough. A model has no such natural boundary, so the community spent years arguing about where the line should be — an argument the Open Source Initiative tried to settle in 2024 with its Open Source AI Definition, and did not fully settle.
Why share the weights at all?
Distribution. A free download earns users, talent, and mindshare faster than any marketing. Commoditisation. Giving away a capability removes a rival’s ability to charge for it. Scrutiny. Researchers can only study what they can run. Sovereignty. A country or company that cannot buy a closed API, or does not trust one, can host open weights itself.
What you can and cannot do
With weights on rung 1, you can run the model, fine-tune it, measure its behaviour, and distil it into something smaller. You cannot know what it was trained on, verify the safety testing behind it, or be certain that the licence lets you do what you think it does — which is the subject of a later chapter. The rest of this act is a tour of the rungs: who climbed past rung 2, what they built, and what it cost.