For these open source experts, it’s all about standards. For Meta, it’s all about the money.

Alex Wong/Staff/Getty Images

Fitting artificial intelligence into open source isn’t easy. Yes, AI foundations rest firmly on open source. And yes, a handful of important programs, such as IBM’s Granite Large Language Models (LLM) and RHEL AI, really are open source. But most of the AI models you’re always hearing about — such as Meta’s Llama — are not open source. Mind you, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg claims it is open source. However, as a panel of open-source experts at the State of Open 2025 conference pointed out, that’s not true.

Emily Omier, a well-regarded open-source start-up consultant, emphasized that open source is a binary standard set by the Open Source Initiative (OSI), not a spectrum. “Either you’re open source, or you are not. If you have the OSI-approved license, you are open source. If you don’t, then you have some other kind of license.”

Meta’s Llama fails this standard by withholding critical components like training data and methodology, and by limiting transparency and community modification.

Meta’s Llama models also impose licensing restrictions on its users. For example, if you have an extremely successful AI program that uses Llama code, you’ll have to pay Meta to use it. That’s not open source. Period.

“In theory, we agree with all that [Zuckerberg] wrote and said,” OSI executive director Stefano Maffulli told me. “If only Meta’s license would remove the restrictions, we’d be more in sync. As it stands now, Llama is a liability for any developer; too opaque to be safe to use and with a license that ultimately leaves Meta in charge of their innovations.”

In short, Maffulli concluded that Zuckerberg was “bullying the industry to follow his lead.”

Everyone knows that open source is the best way to make software. Zuckerberg knows that — and agrees with it: “We benefited from the ecosystem’s innovations by open-sourcing leading tools like PyTorch, React, and many more tools. This approach has consistently worked for us when we stick with it over the long term.”

All those tools, however, are under OSI licenses. For AI, Zuckerberg wants to redefine open source. Why? “He’s polluting the term to mislead regulators,” said Peter Zaitsev, co-founder of database company Percona and many open-source startups.

That’s vital for Meta’s European Union (EU) plans because, under the recently passed EU AI Act, there’s an exception for AI systems released under free and open-source licenses that could save Meta hundreds of millions — perhaps billions — of dollars.

And that’s why Meta is lobbying to redefine “open source” for AI — while withholding critical components. According to Meta, “Existing open source definitions for software do not encompass the complexities of today’s rapidly advancing AI models. We are committed to keep working with the industry on new definitions to serve everyone safely and responsibly within the AI community.”

In other words, by defining open source in a way that will benefit Meta but no one else.

This is not what open source is about, no matter what Meta argues.