HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
Open-Weights
Definition
OPEN SOURCE2023–2023
Open-Weights / Definition

Definition

Definition for Open Weights LIcensing

2Distinct people
3Mentions
0Explicit recommenders
150GitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Definition for Open Weights LIcensing

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use has been verified yet.

What people are saying

No recommendation phrase was found in the indexed comments.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

No other repository is repeatedly linked in the same discussions.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 3:03:16 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by week3 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2023-06-11 15:40:10 UTC to 2023-07-25 22:51:36 UTC. Weeks start Monday, UTC.

012023-06-05 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 commentsJun 52023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 commentsJun 262023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 1 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 0 mentions; 0 submissions, 0 comments2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 1 mentions; 0 submissions, 1 commentsJul 24

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
Jun 52023-06-05 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC110
Jun 122023-06-12 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 192023-06-19 00:00:00 UTC2023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC000
Jun 262023-06-26 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 32023-07-03 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC110
Jul 102023-07-10 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 172023-07-17 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC000
Jul 242023-07-24 00:00:00 UTC2023-07-31 00:00:00 UTC101

What Hacker News says

3 sources
Open source isn't about "ethics" and if fact is antithetical to trying to enforce your world view on others, which is the opposite of software freedom. More pragmatically, I'd suggest anyone who thinks attaching ethical requirements to shared software read this article by open source lawyer Kate Downing who explains how pointless it is: https://katedowninglaw.com/2023/07/13/ai-licensing-cant-bala... To quote (it's a long article, this is nowhere near her full argument): To put this another way, no license on earth is going to stop the Chinese Communist Party from using a model from Hugging Face to maintain biometric identification on its citizens, if that’s what it wants to do. If a terrorist organization wants to use the models to plan future attacks against Americans, maybe there’s no local court that cares to stop them from doing so.
Read the rest
What exactly is the sort of model that’s ok for North Korea to use however it wants, but whose use will require extraordinary levels of surveillance in the Western world? Are the licensors essentially arming hostile governments and terrorist organizations and only retaining control over law-abiding people? Do the licensors think it doesn’t matter if existing totalitarian regimes entrench their power over their helpless citizens even further so long as the licenses allow them to keep such practices at bay in the Western world? Is their technology not actually dangerous enough to warrant all these use restrictions? To quote Heather Meeker, another open source lawyer (et al): ... we do not believe that a definition of Open Weights needs to import subjects such as privacy, human rights, or clearance of data inputs into its licensing principles. We know those are important topics, but they will take time to figure out. We are focused instead on the original idea of openness, and preserving the original goals of Freedom Zero of free software and open source. https://github.com/Open-Weights/Definition Muddying the definitions and goals of free software with subjective ethics is going to be extremely bad for the community and will accomplish none of the goals its proponents are after.
In Why Open Source AI Projects Need a Code of Ethics

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.