Facebook has been touting their work as both "open source" and "open science", despite being in direct violation of the terms [1, 2]. Others have done similar t

Facebook has been touting their work as both "open source" and "open science", despite being in direct violation of the terms [1, 2]. Others have done similar things, but not on such a big scale and with models with such big reach. In the community, the terms have now become sufficiently muddied that it is hard to have a conversation about what an open model even is. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 [2]: https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/metas-llama-2-license-is-not-ope... Thankfully, OLMo [3] reverted their decision to go with a license that contained usage restrictions and hopefully this sets the standard going forward so that the corporate actors no longer can appropriate the term and will find a suitable term on their own such as "available". But it pains me to see that they had to write "truly open" to distinguish themselves from the "poseurs". [3]: https://allenai.org/olmo https://allenai.org/olmo