Then those should not be considered “open” in any real sense—when we say “open source,” we’re talking about the four freedoms (more or less—cf. the negligible difference between OSI and FSF definitions).

So when we apply the same principles to another category, such as weights, we should not call things “open” that don’t grant those same freedoms. In the case of this research license, Freedom 0 at least is not maintained. Therefore, the weights aren’t open, and to call them “open” would be to indeed dilute the meaning of open qua open source.