Maybe. But this isn't how language works. Particularly not English.
A corollary of No true Scotsman [1] is the person administering that purity test rarely gets to define a Scotsman.
It has nothing to do with natural language evolution.
LLMs were entirely proprietary. In that context, Facebook put forward a foundational model one can run on their own hardware and called it open.
At the time, nobody had defined what an open-source LLM was. People came out to say Llama wasn't open. But nobody rigorously proposed a practical definition. The OSI has started, but they're being honest about it being a draft. In the meantime, people are organically discussing open versus proprietary models in a variety of contexts, most of which aren't particularly concerned with the OSI's definitions.
When you see a MIT-licensed repository, do you call a screenshot, icons or other image assets "open pictures"? That would be laughable. We don't need non-ambiguity outside of context.
Second, the purism argument is just silly. Is GCC not open source because there's no LaTeX for IA-32 manual, and its x86 machine instruction generator is clearly distilled from it?
Even your reply to this one lacks nuance that I brought up. Where do you draw a line for the things that need "source" vs the ones that don't?
one is pragmatic, ergonomic, and motivated by advancing relationships between communicating persons in a naturally occurring way because the common denominator is a quick race to mutual understanding.
the other is manufactured, and not motivated by relation and advancing communication, but by how the shift in understanding benefits the one pushing for it, and often involves telling people how to think but is doing it through subversion.
Sort of. I'm claiming the meaning of open source when applied to AI is unsettled. There are guiding principles that seem to imply Llama is not open source. But merely pointing that out without offering a practical alternative definition almost guarantees that the intentionally-misused definition Facebook is promulgating becomes the accepted one.
however i do not think the alternatives need to be proposed at this moment in time because right now, the discussion is about holding people who intentionally reframe and misuse words accountable for their "double-speak" given the term's precedent.
conventionally, and by historical collective understanding, it is not open source.
i get you are attempting to highlight AI perhaps means this should be a definition reconsidered, but the irony here is the message itself is distorted due to the conflation, hence why consistency in language to me seems self-evident as a net good.
there is most certainly a difference between naturally occurring (which our brains reeeally support in terms of language development and symbolic communication), and manufactured (and therefore pushing for a word, or more aptly, a perspective's adoption).
i'd rather words manifest through a common need to reach mutual understanding as a means to relate to one another and this world, rather than having someone who stands to benefit from the change in definition, tell me what it means, and then expect me to just "agree", while they campaign around that and pretend it's the established definition (and not actually their own revised version).
it'd be one thing if people who were throwing the term around so loosely would be transparent: "Hey, we know this isn't historically what everyone means by OSS, but... that's OSS your OSS this is OSS, everything is OSS
instead a lot of these narratives are standing on the shoulders of the original definition and context of what it means to be OSS, and therefore the pedigree, implications (and whatever else for PR spin/influence), and simultaneously diluting what it means in the process as the definition gets further and further obfuscated by those influencing the change, and its pedigree is relied on as a distraction away from what is being done, or actually said.