[mrob]

If you truly love Open Source, you should update the the language you use to describe your models so it doesn't mislead people into thinking it has something to do with Open Source.

Despite being called "Open", the Gemma weights are released under a license that is incompatible with the Open Source Definition. It has more in common with Source-Available Software, and as such it should be called a "Weights-Available Model".

[surajrmal]

Open source is not defined as strictly as what you are suggesting it is. If you wish to have a stricter definition, a new term should probably be used. I believe I've heard it referred to as libre software in the past

[mrob]

"Open Source Software" always refers to software that meets the Open Source Definition. "Libre Software" always refers to software that meets the Free Software Definition. In practice the two are often identical, hence the abbreviations "FOSS" (Free and Open Source Software) and "FLOSS" (Free/Libre and Open Source Software).

Although I don't know Google's motivation for using "Open" to describe proprietary model weights, the practical result is increasing confusion about Open Source Software. It's behavior that benefits any organization wanting to enjoy the good image of the Open Source Software community while not actually caring about that community at all.