> terms that have specific, widely accepted definitions

OSF's definition is far from the only one [1]. Switzerland is currently implementing CH Open's definition, the EU another one, et cetera.

> I don't get why you think it would be useful to call LLMs with published weights "open source"

I don't. I'm saying that if the choice is between open weights or open weights + open training data, open weights will win because the useful definition will outcompete the pristine one in a public context.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio...

For the EU, I'm guessing you're talking about the EUPL, which is FSF/OSI approved and GPL compatible, generally considered copyleft.

For the CH Open, I'm not finding anything specific, even from Swiss websites, could you help me understand what you're referring to here?

I'm guessing that all these definitions have at least some points in common, which involves (another guess) at least being able to produce the output artifacts/binaries by yourself, something that you cannot do with Llama, just as an example.

> For the CH Open, I'm not finding anything specific, even from Swiss websites, could you help me understand what you're referring to here

Was on the HN front page earlier [1][2]. The definition comes strikingly close to source on request with no use restrictions.

> all these definitions have at least some points in common

Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41047172

[2] https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/collection/open-source-observato...

> Agreed. But they're all different. There isn't an accepted defintiion of open source even when it comes to software; there is an accepted set of broad principles.

Agreed, but are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?

> (The way open source software, today, generally means source available, not FOSS.)

Do any of these principles or definitions from these orgs agree/disagree with that?

My hypothesis is that they generally would go against that belief and instead argue that open source is different from source available. But I haven't looked specifically to confirm if that's true or not, just a guess.

> are we splitting hairs here and is it relevant to the claim made earlier?

I don't think so. Take the Swiss definition. Source on request, not even available. Yet being branded and accepted as open source.

(To be clear, the Swiss example favours FOSS. But it also permits source on request and bundles them together under the same label.)

diluting open source into a marketing term meaning "you can download something" would be a sad result

> specific, widely accepted definitions

Realistically, nobody outside of Hacker News commenters have ever cared about the OSD. It's just not how the term is used colloquially.

who says open source colloquially? ime anyone who doesn't care about software licenses will just say free (per free beer)

and (strong personal opinion) any software developer should have a firm grip on the terminology and details for legal reasons

> who says open source colloquially?

There is a large span of people between gray beard programmer and lay person, and many in that span have some concept of open-source. It's often used synonymously with visible source, free software, or in this case, open weights.

It seems unfortunate - though expected - that over half of the comments in this thread are debating the OSD for the umpeenth time instead of discussing the actual model release or accompanying news posts. Meanwhile communities like /r/LocalLlama are going hog wild with this release and already seeing what it can do.

> any software developer should have a firm grip on the terminology and details for legal reasons

They'd simply need to review the terms of the license to see if it fits their usage. It doesn't really matter if the license satisfies the OSD or not.