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.
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.
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.
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.
