Open source is both a colloquial term for available/modifiable/distributable code (like Llama2), and a strict OSI-approved list of licenses. I'd say opensource-ish is a great fit here.

Edit: this is in fact fairly interesting discussion because LLM is a new breed of digital products. Meta's terms are practical for limiting the usage for commercial applications, and they are designed to protect the general population. It's not the worn out "protecting us from ourselves", its actually preventing Llama users from harming non-users. Yes, we can be jaded and say it's about protecting the brand and dissociating from bad actors. My point is that it's hard to apply usual arguments for open source and freedom of computing, when you're defending rights of people who want to harm other people.

Sure there is, BSD is bad because xyz, GPL is bad because zyx. That said Llama restrictions are rather harsh and you are not allowed to improve other models with it. So no freedom there just some ok beer.