story
That's why terms like "libre" were born to describe certain kinds of software. And that's what you're describing.
This is a debate that started, like, twenty years ago or something when we started getting big code projects that were open source but encumbered by patents so that they couldn't be redistributed, but could still be read and modified for internal use.
That's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software , not 'open source'. The latter was specifically coined [1] as a way to talk about "free software" (with its freedom connotations) without the price connotations:
The argument was as follows: those new to the term "free software" assume it is referring to the price. Oldtimers must then launch into an explanation, usually given as follows: "We mean free as in freedom, not free as in beer." At this point, a discussion on software has turned into one about the price of an alcoholic beverage. The problem was not that explaining the meaning is impossible—the problem was that the name for an important idea should not be so confusing to newcomers. A clearer term was needed. No political issues were raised regarding the free software term; the issue was its lack of clarity to those new to the concept.
[1] https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
And French fries are anything that was fried in France?
No, they also fail even that test. Neither Meta nor DeepSeek have released the source code of their training pipeline or anything like that. There's very little literal "source code" in any of these releases at all.
What you can get from them is the model weights, which for the purpose of this discussion, is very similar to compiler binary executable output you cannot easily reverse, which is what open source seeks to address. In the case of Meta, this comes with additional usage limitations on how you may put them to use.
As a sibling comment said, this is basically "freeware" (with asterisks) but has nothing to do with open source, either according to RMS or OSI.
> This is a debate that started, like, twenty years ago
For the record, I do appreciate the distinction. This isn't meant as an argument from authority at all, but I've been an active open source (and free software) developer for close to those 20 years, am on the board of one of the larger FOSS orgs, and most households have a few copies of FOSS code I've written running. It's also why I care! :-)
Also the training data is of a massive amount.
Additionally, what about human in the loop training, do you deliver humans as part of the source?
This debate is over and makes the open source community look silly. Open model and weights is, practically speaking, open source for LLMs.
I have tremendous respect for FOSS and those who build and maintain it. But arguing for open training data means only toy models can practically exist. As a result, the practical definition will prevail. And if the only people putting forward a practical definition are Meta et al, this is what you get: source available.
Completely, fully breaking the meaning of the term "open source" is causing collateral damage outside the AI topic, that's where it really hurts. The open source principle is still useful and necessary, and we need words to communicate about it and raise correct expectations and apply correct standards. As a dev you very likely don't want to live in a tech environment where we regress on this.
It's not "source available" either. There's no source. It's freeware.
"I can download it and run it" isn't open source.
I'm actually not too worried that people won't eventually re-discover the same needs that open source originally discovered, but it's pretty lame if we lose a whole bunch of time and effort to re-learn some lessons yet again.
We need to relearn because we need a different definition for LLMs. One that works in practice, not just at the peripheries.
Maybe we can have FOSS LLMs vs open-source ones, like we do with software licenses. The former refers to the hardcore definition. The latter the practical (and widely used) one.
