[necovek]

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.

[JumpCrisscross]

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.

[SV_BubbleTime]

You don’t need to defend a silly argument.

These models aren’t open source, they’re open weights, and some people will confuse the two.

It doesn’t make the wrong word the right one. Just that it’s a lazy combination and people don’t need to mind.

[JumpCrisscross]

> doesn’t make the wrong word the right one. Just that it’s a lazy combination and people don’t need to mind

That’s a fair interpretation. I’m going one step further: if most people use the term “wrong,” including experts and industry leaders, that’s eventually the correct use. The term “open source” as requiring open training data is impractical to the point of being virtually useless outside philosophical contexts. This debate is on the same plane as folks who like to argue tomatoes aren’t vegetables, when the truth is botanically they aren’t while culinarily they are. DeepSeek’s model not being open source is only true for the FOSS-jargony definition of open source—in non-jargon use, it’s open source.