In the LLM space, "open source" is being used to mean "downloadable weights"
&gt; For the foreseeable future, open source and open weights will be used interchangeably, and I think that’s okay.<p>This is a little weird given that directly above, the author puts LLaMA into the &quot;restricted weights&quot; category. Even by the definition the author proposes, LLaMA 2.0 isn&#x27;t open source; we shouldn&#x27;t be calling it open source.<p>If open source in the LLM world means &quot;you can get the weights&quot; and doesn&#x27;t imply anything about restrictions on their usage, then I don&#x27;t think that&#x27;s adapting terminology to a new context, I think it&#x27;s really cheapening the meaning of Open Source. If you want to refer to specifically &quot;open weights&quot; as open source, I&#x27;m a bit more sympathetic to that (although I don&#x27;t think it&#x27;s the right terminology to use). But I see where people are coming from -- I&#x27;m not too put off by people using open source to describe weights you can download without restrictions on usage.<p>But LLaMA is not open weights. It&#x27;s a closed, proprietary set of weights[0] that at best could be compared to source available software.<p>It is deceptive for Facebook to call LLaMA open source, and we shouldn&#x27;t go along with that narrative.<p>[0]: to the extent weights can be copyrighted at all, which I would argue they can&#x27;t be copyrighted, but that&#x27;s another conversation.