> What constitutes Open Source is not vague, btw. it's well defined by the OSI [1].
I'm pretty surprised to see objections to my claims here, I kinda thought I was just stating the obvious.
> Who is this organisation that they get to mandate the definition of the english language?
> What authority do they have to define the term “open source”?
This term has meaning and while its meaning started with an group of people forming an organization saying "this is what this means" its meaning doesn't derive from OSI (nor some farcical aquatic ceremony). Its meaning comes from its popular use in language. For example, Wikipedia does describe this term and how it came to be used [1].
IMO it would be unclear and confusing to use the same term Open Source to describe both what it has historically described and how model weights like these are distributed. The term "Open Source" itself was coined to disambiguate merely "open" source from "free-as-in-freedom" source.
I'm pretty surprised to see objections to my claims here, I kinda thought I was just stating the obvious.
> Who is this organisation that they get to mandate the definition of the english language?
> What authority do they have to define the term “open source”?
This term has meaning and while its meaning started with an group of people forming an organization saying "this is what this means" its meaning doesn't derive from OSI (nor some farcical aquatic ceremony). Its meaning comes from its popular use in language. For example, Wikipedia does describe this term and how it came to be used [1].
IMO it would be unclear and confusing to use the same term Open Source to describe both what it has historically described and how model weights like these are distributed. The term "Open Source" itself was coined to disambiguate merely "open" source from "free-as-in-freedom" source.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source