[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.

[kube-system]

The OSD applies only to open source software. It is nonsensical when applied to non-software works. You can’t release the source code for a language model because they don’t have source code.