CC-BY-NC Isn't an open source licence, it violates point six of the open source definition https://opensource.org/osd/
More popular opinion is OSI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative
They were founded by the persons who (claimed to have) invented the term in order to steward it. It's the same definition as the FSF.
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.
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.
For what you mean, I use "FLOSS".
The article says this:
> 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
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.