OSI has already declared that the Llama 2 License is not an Open Source license. The Llama 3.1 License is a license with only a few minor changes from Llama 2, so I don’t see much point in reiterating the same argument.
Mark Zuckerberg might be asserting that OSI’s definition of Open Source is for source code licenses and does not apply to LLMs. In some jurisdictions, it is already certain that the results of AI training do not fall under copyright, and it is true that the legal validity of Open Source licenses in such cases remains unclear. Therefore, it’s possible that Zuckerberg has a different definition of Open Source than we do.
There’s not much we can do in this situation, but I believe that the creation of OSAID is our response to him.