If it's research it very probably is at least partially publicly funded. Regardless of whatever the law says, I don't think it's immoral to take it and offer better services around it that will be useful enough that someone decides to pay.
Do you not see the hypocrisy in stating that someone should be able to take something partially publicly funded and profit from it while the creator of said work should not retain some rights over said profit? By extension of the transitive property of the nebulous "partially", the LLM wrapper should be provided for free with complete disregard to the wrapper's creator since it is a derivative of partially publicly funded work.
Yeah, the LLM maybe - though nobody paid for the training costs in that case and that feels weird. If the public paid for a work, it should be able to use it and not be required to give away their own derivative work for free since they already paid for it through taxes.
While I rather like the idea of having to provide access to derivates of publicly funded works, I fear that people would rather not use it than invest money into innovative approaches of using it. Of course if the public pays for the training and development costs, then by all means it should be available.
And the library itself and the computing resources to operate it cost money that someone needs to pay. Publishers didn't pay for the research and yet they can profit from it - why this guy shouldn't?
