I disagree. Open source is when the source is open. Free software is when you are free to make modifications and redistribute.

Edit: as bayindirh noted, according to OSI's definition, I am completely incorrect about redistribution of modifications.

▲

bayindirh 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The definition of Open Source [0] is freer than what you portray, but Open Weights is not open by this definition. As I said in the thread, it's more like "weights available, with some freedoms attached".

Current state is detrimental to both Free/Open Software and AI ecosystems at the same time.

[0]: https://opensource.org/osd

	▲	kennywinker 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		My point was never that open weights = open source, so it’s not surprising that they fail the OSI definition of open source. My point is that open weights exists somewhere on the spectrum between closed source and open source, and imo much closer to open source than closed. As evidence, see the thousands of open-weight model derived models on hugging face.
	▲	tyromaniac 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I stand corrected.

▲

m463 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

you're still correct.

"open source" is ambiguous (in cases this is deliberate)

OSI has its own definition of open source, but there's no reason someone can't say their code is "open source" because you can see the source code.

This is akin to saying 10tb hard disk... very few people quantify this with tera or tebi or Ti or whatever unless there is some legal fineprint required. and there is no hard legal definition for calling something "open source".

In any case, stallman has a take on the difference in philosophy of the OSI version:

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....