> Not really. At least not in normal software.

Yes, in normal software, the 'recipe' used to create the build artifacts is the source.

> The recipe is honestly only really interesting to researchers (like me). But for building and production stuff, you have everything you need.

A lot of excuses about why it's not useful to a lot of people and that you don't actually need it to use it in production is exactly the argument made for why not open sourcing is ok. That doesn't mean this is a source release, open or otherwise.

> I repeat, a free windows ISO doesn't have an Apache license attached. This is an inane comparison.

Even if the Windows binary iso was released with an Apache license, it wouldn't be open source since no actual source was released. That's the point of that line of argument.

Like if someone only gave me binaries of Apache and said it's open source, you wouldn't agree with them. Cause you can't practically modify it. Open source of a model would be exact same, you would need to be able to do the same build process. A model is literally the same as an EXE or Elf Binary, its a "probabilistic" program, but its still a program