Which models claim that they are "open source" but are not? I think none of them. I think people confuse "open weight" with "open source." That confusion comes from the "internet AI experts," not the labs that produced them.
[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288
[2]: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope...
Thankfully, OLMo [3] reverted their decision to go with a license that contained usage restrictions and hopefully this sets the standard going forward so that the corporate actors no longer can appropriate the term and will find a suitable term on their own such as "available". But it pains me to see that they had to write "truly open" to distinguish themselves from the "poseurs".
https://mistral.ai/news/mixtral-8x22b/
Also from the Llama 3 announcement: 'Today, we’re introducing Meta Llama 3, the next generation of our state-of-the-art open source large language model.'
The right term for most of these models would be "weights available".