> "open source" by now has an established and widespread definition

For code, yes. For LLMs, the most commonly-used definition is synonymous with open weight (plus, I think, lack of major use restrictions).

> If we do not accept a well defined term and want to keep it a personal preference, we can say that about any word in a natural language

Plenty of people do. It’s generally polite to entertain their preferences, but only to a limit, and certainly not as a forcing function. The practical reality is describing DeepSeek’s models as open source is today the mainstream mode.

▲

necovek 2 days ago | parent [-]

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 2 days ago | parent [-]

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 21 hours ago | parent [-]

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 15 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.