the “and” in FOSS is actually doing alot of heavy lifting, as open source really does only mean source available
yes, I want FOSS too
yes, I want FOSS too
The definition and history of the term as a licence is unambiguous in that the only restriction on redistribution is that it contains the source code under the same licence. There are senior engineers alive today that weren't even born when this was the commonly understood meaning of the term, it's not a new concept.
The term and usage is being co-opted these days but that's bound to happen when it's not a legally protected definition. Give it another 10-20 years and I'm sure we'll be having the same argument over whatever term ends up replacing 'open source'.
Language exists to convey a shared concept
In this case, the evolved version of open source fails to convey a shared concept in comparison to the prior term, “free and open source software” or FOSS for a shorthand adjective
Here, people with knowledge of the lexicon are using it accurately, and people without knowledge of the lexicon or its etymology are complaining when they should be pushing for FOSS instead of getting surprised everytime
We can't all be like Donald Knuth or Simon Tatham making TeX and PuTTY as personal projects.
[0] specifically the freedom to fork, to develop further, and to make new releases that others can also build upon, which means I aver that many of the public AI models are sufficiently open that they're de facto open source even if the licensing isn't there.
Even if it's a de jure violation of the copyright to make a derivative, I'm not sure you could prove that had happened when all the weights are floating point numbers you can randomise slightly as a first step — if training just happens to move them back to the original values, well, that's just evidence the optimiser was working.
You must mean should be, since we have decades of evidence to the contrary.