The dataset is massive and impractical to share, and a dataset may include bias and conditions for use, and the dataset is a completely separate thing from the code. You would always want to use a dataset that fit your needs. From known sources. It’s easy to collect data. Programming a good AI algorithm not so much.
Saying a model isn’t open source because collected data isn’t included is like saying a music player isn’t open source, because it doesn’t include any music.
EDIT!!!
TheGrandNagus is however right about the source code missing, investigating further, the actual source code is not available. and the point about OSI (Open Source Initiative) is valid, because OSI originally coined the term and defined the meaning of Open Source, so their description is per definition the only correct one.
Open source as a term emerged in the late 1990s by a group of people in the free software movement who were critical of the political agenda and moral philosophy implied in the term “free software” and sought to reframe the discourse to reflect a more commercially minded position.[14] In addition, the ambiguity of the term “free software” was seen as discouraging business adoption.[15][16] However, the ambiguity of the word “free” exists primarily in English as it can refer to cost. The group included Christine Peterson, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann and Eric S. Raymond. Peterson suggested “open source” at a meeting[17] held at Palo Alto, California, in reaction to Netscape’s announcement in January 1998 of a source code release for Navigator.[18] Linus Torvalds gave his support the following day
The tide has turned. With the December 2024 launch of DeepSeek’s free-for-all V3 large language model (LLM) and the January 2025 release of DeepSeek’s R1 (the AI reasoning model that rivals the capabilities of OpenAI’s O1), the open-source movement started by Chinese firms has sent shockwaves through Silicon Valley and Wall Street.
And:
DeepSeek, adopting an open-source approach was an effective strategy for catching up, as it allowed them to use contributions from a broader community of developers.”
I’ve read similar descriptions in other articles, seems your claim is false.
Investigating further I can see it is NOT open source. All the articles saying that are lying, probably unknowingly just as I believed the claim, they probably did too, and I’m NOT being sarcastic!
I have no idea why publishing these “weights” is considered open source, it has nothing to do with Open Source as defined by OSI, which I believe has a historical right to the term.
Oh I didn’t detect any snarkiness, just you being to the point, which is a thing I appreciate.
But I’m often considered impolite. I think it’s a culture thing.
But I must admit I am annoyed by you contradicting me, but it’s even worse that you were right.
I find that generally offensive.
So I’ll go sulk in corner for a few minutes. 😜 😋 🤣
Still debatable, the weights are the code. That’s a bit like saying “X software is not open source because it has equations but it doesn’t include the proofs that they’re derived from”.
Unless the dataset, weighting, and every aspect is open source, it’s not truly open source, as the OSI defines it.
The dataset is massive and impractical to share, and a dataset may include bias and conditions for use, and the dataset is a completely separate thing from the code. You would always want to use a dataset that fit your needs. From known sources. It’s easy to collect data. Programming a good AI algorithm not so much.
Saying a model isn’t open source because collected data isn’t included is like saying a music player isn’t open source, because it doesn’t include any music.
EDIT!!!
TheGrandNagus is however right about the source code missing, investigating further, the actual source code is not available. and the point about OSI (Open Source Initiative) is valid, because OSI originally coined the term and defined the meaning of Open Source, so their description is per definition the only correct one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source
no,
your changing the definition of open source software. which has been around a lot longer than AI has.
source code is what defines open source.
what deepseek has is open weights. they publish the results of their learning only. not the source that produced it.
https://techwireasia.com/2025/07/china-open-source-ai-models-global-rankings/
And:
I’ve read similar descriptions in other articles, seems your claim is false.
can you show me the actual source code?
the human readable code, not the weights.
The (claimed) source:
https://github.com/deepseek-ai
Investigating further I can see it is NOT open source. All the articles saying that are lying, probably unknowingly just as I believed the claim, they probably did too, and I’m NOT being sarcastic!
I have no idea why publishing these “weights” is considered open source, it has nothing to do with Open Source as defined by OSI, which I believe has a historical right to the term.
I apologize.
forgive my snarkiness. its usually the quickest way to this realization.
Oh I didn’t detect any snarkiness, just you being to the point, which is a thing I appreciate.
But I’m often considered impolite. I think it’s a culture thing.
But I must admit I am annoyed by you contradicting me, but it’s even worse that you were right.
I find that generally offensive.
So I’ll go sulk in corner for a few minutes. 😜 😋 🤣
Still debatable, the weights are the code. That’s a bit like saying “X software is not open source because it has equations but it doesn’t include the proofs that they’re derived from”.
what has been published by deep seek is the music, not the software, the music.
In the same way as an Excel spreadsheet containing a crosstab of analytics results is “the code.”
It’s processed input for a visualization/playback mechanism, not source code.