See, but my point is that this is putting the cart before the horse. The "Open" in "Open Source" is what matters most by far, the same way that the "Free" in "Free Software" is the key word that qualifies the kind of software we're taking about.
Once we've resolved the problem of using the word "Open" incorrectly I'm happy to have a conversation about what should be the preferred form for modification (i.e. source) of an LLM. But that is the less important and far more esoteric discussion (and one about which reasonable people can and do disagree), to the point where it's merely a distraction from the incredibly meaningful and important problem of calling something "Open Source" while attaching an Acceptable Use policy to it.
Once we've resolved the problem of using the word "Open" incorrectly I'm happy to have a conversation about what should be the preferred form for modification (i.e. source) of an LLM. But that is the less important and far more esoteric discussion (and one about which reasonable people can and do disagree), to the point where it's merely a distraction from the incredibly meaningful and important problem of calling something "Open Source" while attaching an Acceptable Use policy to it.