[teddyh]

Yes, and? The FSF may disagree with the OSI on some matters, but the FSF does agree on the definition of the term “Open Source”, which was what we were discussing. Do you have a different definition of “Open Source” (as applied to software), and why should that definition take precedence over that of the definition from the OSI?

[kube-system]

There are many people who use the term differently. I am not arguing that any of them “take precedence”.

I am saying the exact opposite: that more than one definition may be valid, because the English lexicon is both descriptive and additive.

[teddyh]

To bring it back to the point: The article claimed that “NLLB (No Language Left Behind) has been open sourced by Facebook”, which is misleading, since “open source” has a strict definition, and the license of NLLB did not qualify with the very first point in the OSI Open Source Definition. Facebook released the source code, under an open license; they could even call it a Creative Commons license, which it was. But the article can’t truthfully call it “open source”, since it isn’t.

[kube-system]

That isn't true. NLLB code is MIT licensed. https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/blob/nllb/LICENS...

The model is CC. Because models aren't code.

[teddyh]

The article said “NLLB” had been “open sourced”, not “NLLB code”.

[kube-system]

OSIs licenses are only for software. If you open source things other than software, you’ll have to use a license that addresses those types of media. Which is what Facebook did. CC licenses are a popular way to “open source” non-software content.

[teddyh]

You are again using the verb “open source” as a synonym for “release” or “freely license”. It is the very subject of this debate that I do not think this to be appropriate unless an OSI-compliant license it used; therefore, you can not now use it as an argument in this same debate.