In my opinion, the Free Software Foundation, ironically, since they invented the movement, with open source starting out as a tacky rip-off with the ethics stripped out. After decades, open source converged on free software.
The people who created the term: the Open Source Initiative.
Before, people most often used "free software" as defined by the free software movement, but some disliked this term because it's confusing (most think "free" means no money) and perceived to be anti-commercial.
The term "open source software" was chosen and given a precise definition.
It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation when it was specifically chosen to avoid confusion.
> It's dishonest, then, for people to use the term "open source software" with a different interpretation
I disagree. You're saying that they "invented" the term, but it's a very generic term. The source is open, it's open source. I bet people were using the term before they claim they invented it.
In that context, it is very fine to use a different definition and in fact here's my definition, and I guess most people (maybe not on HN) share it: if the source is visible by the general public, it's open source.
> Our audio research framework and training code is released under the MIT license to enable the broader community to reproduce and build on top of our work
It's pretty common in academic research for trained model weights to be licensed under something different from the code that one would run to create such a model if one had both sufficient compute resources and the same training dataset. That is, if those weights are ever released at all!
IMO, while I'd rather have one part permissively licensed than nothing at all... it stinks that companies sponsoring researchers get an un-nuanced level of street cred for "open sourcing" something that they know nobody will ever be able to reproduce because their data set and/or their compute grid's optimizations are proprietary.
As it stands, I'm not at all sure that the outputs of this model can be used for commercial videos.
