LLaMa isn’t just weights. It’s code too. Including source code. And the license the code is under does not qualify as Open Source according to the most official definition of “Open Source” out there.

And yes, weights aren’t code. I also don’t want to see photographs and novels referred to as “Open Source.” “Permissively Licensed” or “Open Culture” or just being more specific about the license terms of such a thing (“Creative Commons” or something) would be preferable.

Meanwhile, LLaMa isn’t legally unencumbered. The license it’s under restricts uses in ways that are fundamentally in opposition to what Open Source means and what the movement behind it stands for.

(It could be argued that “legally unencumbered” isn’t even a good way to describe “Open Source.” Lemmy is published under an Aferro GPL which only allows running/hosting Lemmy for use over a network under the strict requirement that the hoster provide the Lemmy source code or the source code of their potentially customized fork of Lemmy to any user who accesses the service over the network under the same software license. That’s definitely encumberance, but encumberance in service of the user’s rights.)

Open Source – real Open Source – is important. I see Meta’s misuse of the term as an attempt to dilute and undermine that Open Source stands for.

I’ve published a fair amount of code I’ve written under Open Source licenses and I don’t want to have to explain to people that when I say my code is Open Source, I mean actual open source that protects the rights of the user and doesn’t discriminate and not the malicious misuse of the term Meta means.

And, I must disagree that what Meta’s doing is “in the same spirit as Open Source.” If they wanted to be “in the same spirit as Open Source”, they could at least make the code actually Open Source. But they’ve intentionally chosen to make it not Open Source in some specific ways.