• LWD@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 days ago

    What exactly makes this more “open source” than DeepSeek? The linked page doesn’t make that particularly clear.

    DeepSeek doesn’t release their training data (but they release a hell of a lot of other stuff), and I think that’s about as “open” as these companies can get before they risk running afoul of copyright issues. Since you can’t compile the model from scratch, it’s not really open source. It’s just freeware. But that’s true for both models, as far as I can tell.

    • fmstrat@lemmy.nowsci.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      22 days ago

      Open weights + an OSI approved license is generally what is used to refer to models as open source. the with that said, Deepseek R1 is am MIT license, and this one is Apache 2. Technically that makes Deepseek less restrictive, but who knows.

    • NGram@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      22 days ago

      Yup, this is open weights just like DeepSeek. Open source should mean their source data is also openly available, but we all know companies won’t do that until they stop violating copyright to train these things.