[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?

[badLiveware]

Source-available[1] is likely the closest commonly used term for it

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

[niedev]

Ok, I think I found the perfect solution, In the readme I added near open-source "(almost)" with a link to the libraries and models section when I explained clearer what components are open-source, closed-source, and cc-by-nc.

[niedev]

it's the closest, but it's a very broad and not so well known term, maybe defining my app open source is not technically a perfect term, but it's the clearest in describing it (considering that in the libraries and models section I specified which are open-source and which are not, Ml-Kit, used to recognize the language, for example is closed source), if a developer doesn't see the open source writing anywhere he will only get confused in understanding what the license of my app is. However, based on your feedback I added the specification (in the "libraries and models" section) that NLLB has a non-commercial license.