Comment by necovek
6 hours ago
The point is that "open source" by now has an established and widespread definition, and a "source" hints that it is something a thing is built from that is open.
Is this really a debate we still need to be having today? Sounds like grumpiness with Open Source Initiative defining this ~25 years ago when this term was rarely used as such.
If we do not accept a well defined term and want to keep it a personal preference, we can say that about any word in a natural language.
> "open source" by now has an established and widespread definition
For code, yes. For LLMs, the most commonly-used definition is synonymous with open weight (plus, I think, lack of major use restrictions).
> If we do not accept a well defined term and want to keep it a personal preference, we can say that about any word in a natural language
Plenty of people do. It’s generally polite to entertain their preferences, but only to a limit, and certainly not as a forcing function. The practical reality is describing DeepSeek’s models as open source is today the mainstream mode.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
Perhaps you are right and this LLM-specific usage enters a dictionary at some point.
As I believe it is very misleading, I am doing my part to discourage it — it is not, imho, impolite to point out established meaning of words when people misuse them. We all create a language together, and all sides have their say.
I think the debate has been around what constitutes the source code. The mode has settled on weights. The spirit of the dictionary definition seems fine for excluding a definition that’s only practical if you own a multimillion-dollar ersatz mainframe.