[nomel]

> Turning everything into some sort of theological debate takes away a lot of credit that Meta deserves.

It's not theological, it's the misuse of a specific legal definition that we all have interest in maintaining. "Freely available models" or "open license" are accurate.

Other companies keeping things for themselves doesn't warp reality, or the existing definitions we use to describe it. Giving them the credit they deserve, especially in comparison to the others, should be enough.

[bevekspldnw]

Hate to break it to you but there’s a thousand court cases a day precisely because “specific legal definition” is a surprisingly flexible concept depending on context. Likewise when new technologies emerge it often requires reappraisal and interpretation of existing laws, even if that reappraisal is simply extending the old law to the new context.

[nomel]

This isn't a problem with interpretation, as I would guess those are. This is a term that clearly describes requirements for a category, with the these models licenses purposefully and directly excluding themselves from that category.