Meta is under renewed scrutiny for what critics describe as 'open washing' after sponsoring a Linux Foundation whitepaper on the benefits of open source AI.

The paper highlights how open models help reduce enterprise costs-claiming companies using proprietary AI tools spend over three times more. However, Meta's involvement has raised questions, as its Llama AI models are presented as open source despite industry experts insisting otherwise.

Amanda Brock, head of OpenUK, argues that Llama does not meet accepted definitions of open source due to licensing terms that restrict commercial use.

She referenced the Open Source Initiative's (OSI) standards, which Llama fails to meet, pointing to the presence of commercial limitations that contradict open source principles. Brock noted that open source should allow unrestricted use, which Llama's license does not support.

Meta has long branded its Llama models as open source, but the OSI and other stakeholders have repeatedly pushed back, stating that the company's licensing undermines the very foundation of open access.

While Brock acknowledged Meta's contribution to the broader open source conversation, she also warned that such mislabelling could have serious consequences-especially as lawmakers and regulators increasingly reference open source in crafting AI legislation.

Other firms have faced similar allegations, including Databricks with its DBRX model in 2024, which was also criticised for failing to meet OSI standards. As the AI sector continues to evolve, the line between truly open and merely accessible models remains a point of growing tension.

Would you like to learn more about AI, tech and digital diplomacy?If so,ask our Diplo chatbot!