> Is the llama license open source as defined by the OSD? No No indeed, full stop. I think that If one needs to express some idea, one should use clear and exa

> Is the llama license open source as defined by the OSD? No No indeed, full stop. I think that If one needs to express some idea, one should use clear and exact terms for this. I don't think "open source", which is widely recognized with a specific meaning, should be twisted. The shared definition of "open source" is the one defined by the OSD. > But for the majority of people, they don't care Maybe they should, but even if they don't, it's not an excuse. Especially in an article about the very topic at hand. The open source definition seems constantly attacked for some reason, and that blurs the meaning of everything in the ecosystem. We need to fight back against this. If you care about open source, how are you supposed to spread the word if "open source" has lost its meaning? It also matters because if one thinks that open source is the better thing to do, but everything and their dog is called open source, then everything is good and we don't need to bother with the principles anymore (not unlike the Overton window). Now, in this case for this article, it's just an example that doesn't work, it's not something fundamentally wrong about it. I'm just pushing back on the idea that it doesn't matter if we misuse "open source" a bit which seems to spread fast these days.