[mrwyz]

The app looks very cool, but you might have a licensing issue; Meta's NLLB models are CC-BY-NC 4.0 (non-commercial use only). I could recommend checking out the OPUS-NLP models, which are truly open.

[Flimm]

In that case, it is not open source. Part 6 of the open source definition by OSI (the only commonly accepted definition) includes this requirement:

> 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.

This app looks really cool and I'm glad OP made it. I'm just asking that the inaccurate "open source" descriptor be removed. Don't let my comment discourage you.

[niedev]

Meta defines NLLB as open source, but assuming it isn't (I know Meta It's not a company that has a problem with lying), my code is open source, so how should I define my app? I personally make a distinction between open source and completely open source (or 100% open source), because otherwise there is no intermediate definition, according to the OSI definition my app is not open source, but it is not closed source either, OSI does it have an intermediate definition?

[EMIRELADERO]

Sidenote: I don't think ML model weights are even copyrightable

[niedev]

I know that, but since I make money only from donations without giving anything in return of the money I am considered non commercial. For now I decided to use NLLB instead of Opus because it has good quality and is a single model for all languages (so I didn't have to implement the download management logic for the various languages and I was able to make the app faster), but it is a temporary solution, I will certainly replace NLLB in the future, either with OpusMt Big or with other models with a less restrictive license.