Hacker News Reader

Definitions are determined by actual usage. If people call Llama 2’s license open source then ipso facto it’s open source.

View on HN

There's about 25 years of actual usage that clearly states otherwise. We can give your idea some weight after 25 years of people consistently calling Llama 2 open source, effectively diluting the term to mean nothing in the process. Meanwhile it's just as if I told you that the sky is green.

There’s a history of actual usage among some subsets of people, not for everyone. Regardless, it doesn’t really matter if there’s history as long as usage is in fact changing. “Literally” meant one thing much longer than it has been a superlative.

I said above that the sky is green, just like people from Meta said that Llama 2 is open source.

See! Actual usage! The sky is now green.

The only reason people say that Llama 2 is open source is because they have been misled, not because the definition is changing. There's a lot of goodwill around the term "open source" because of its actual meaning, so it will always be tempting to abuse it for your own benefit, as not everyone bothers to check whether your claims are actually true.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com