They can be used by Facebook to get more data on user....

This definition is too restrictive. Wether you choose to suscribe to this definition or not is a matter of opinion.

Open source is not a just a term with margin for interpretation: to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules defined by the open source initiative. Restricting commercial usage goes against rule 6.

You can call it readable source or whatever, but it's not open source as defined by OSI.

"6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."

https://opensource.org/osd

The reality is that the vast majority of software developers do not consider a strict conformance to the 10 OSI criteria as being necessary to apply the term "open source".

Maybe they're all just wrong, but it's worth considering why.

> the vast majority of software developers do not consider a strict conformance to the 10 OSI criteria as being necessary to apply the term "open source"

[citation needed]

My counter claim, without citation, is that I actually believe (from experience) that the vast majority of 'open source' projects are in fact released under licenses that already comply with the 10 OSI criteria, and are therefore 'approved' OSI licenses. This is easily witnessed by looking at the licenses of the majority of open source projects — or perhaps even just the most popular ones.

That would seem to go against your claim regarding 'most developers'.

But it's not actually a debate about 'most developers', it's about the OSS projects out there, not individual devs, no?

Here is a citation for you. 3/4 of the repos on github use MIT, GPL or Apache.

Done and won. Most open source projects (in 2015) use real open source licenses.

https://github.blog/2015-03-09-open-source-license-usage-on-...

https://solutionshub.epam.com/blog/post/examining-open-sourc...

Indeed... MIT, GPL and Apache are all approved OSI licenses and on the list! [0] — Most well known open source licenses are, of course.

Thanks for the citations, appreciated. I was on a mobile device when I made my previous comment, and it would've been fiddly to sort out.

[0] https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

> Open source is not a just a term with margin for interpretation

Yes it is. Who is the open source initiative to define the english language?

> to be open source, you must comply with the 10 rules

The open source initiative didn't not invent this expression. They worked hard to promote their idea of it, and its application. They did a lot of good, but aren't an autorative source when it comes to its definition.

Right. The OSD is not a "de jure" (by law) definition, but it is clearly the "de facto" definition of Open Source.

Well they are not useless for academic research.

IANAL, but it would seem to me this license covers the model itself and not output of the model.

This is a copyright license for the model, so I think that should just mean you can't sell the model or a derivative of the model.

I guess when it's released you have to fill out some form or click some box to accept some license agreement, that in practice is a contract saying you won't use it for commercial purposes, but if you were to just download it from somewhere your only restrictions would be on redistributing it, but not on its use.

Not entirely sure if this is correct though.