LONDON -- 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."