|
|
|
|
|
|
by jimjimwii
502 days ago
|
|
|
Terminology exists for a reason. Doubly so for well-established terms of art that pertain to licensing and contract law. They could have used "open wights" which would have conveyed the company's desired intent just as well as "open source", but without the ambiguity. They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead. I applaud and thank deepseek for opening their weights, but i absolutely condemn them and others (e.g Facebook) for their deliberate and continued misuse of the term. I and others like me will continue to
raise this point as long as we are active in this field, so expect to see this criticism for decades. Hopefully one of these companies losses a lawsuit due to these shenanigans. Perhaps then they wouldn't misuse these terms so brazenly. |
|
|
This is the kind of inconsequential nitpicking diatribe I'm referring to. When has "open data" ever meant Open Source?
> They deliberately chose to misuse a well established term instead.
Their model weights as well as their repositories containing their technical papers and any source code are published under an OSS MIT license, which is the reason why initiatives like this looking to reproduce R1 are even possible.
But no, we have to waste space in every open model release complaining that they must be condemned for continuing to use the same label the rest of the industry uses to describe their open models which are released under an OSS License as Open Source - instead of using whatever preferred unused label you want them to use.