We hear you, nevertheless this is one of the very few open-weights and open-data LLMs, and the license is still very permissive (compare for example to Llama). Personally of course I'd like to remove the additional click, but the universities also have a say in this.
In the US, many state governments have anti-indemnify laws that restrict the state government agencies (including state universities) from agreeing to contracts and agreements with such language. I'd love to make this available to researchers at my university, but I'm not sure I can click through such an agreement (similar problems exist with other LLMs).
It is Apache 2 and I don't see anything that prohibits another contracting party from agreeing to the Apertus LLM Acceptable Use Policy and redistributing with just Apache 2 and without the AUP. Maybe this provides a solution? Unless I'm missing something?
Ok so why keep calling it "truly open" then? It's an obvious lie and nobody is forcing you to say it. It benefits your marketing, sure, but it harms everyone else by diluting the meaning of the term "open". So stop doing that please.
