If the weight, training and inference code, and training data are all released under of Open Source (OSI definition) license, the it is unmistakably “open source”. As you drift from that it becomes less clearly so, and when you get to no training data, and the model weights license having extensive limitations on allowed uses, the use of even “open weights” becomes deceptive.

Also, llama isn't even open source; it's proprietary, with the source available.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Ship has sailed whether you approve or not.