Why Matt Mullenweg Calls Meta's Llama 'Fake Open Source'
Mullenweg argues Llama isn't truly open source because Meta's license requires companies above a large monthly-active-user threshold to obtain permission. That violates the first freedom — using software for any purpose without asking. He praises Meta's genuine open source contributions like React but is confused why they insist on the 'open source' label, guessing it may be tied to European AI regulation.
- Llama's license requires a separate license from Meta above a ~750 million MAU threshold
- Requiring permission at any point breaks the freedom to use software for any purpose
- Definitional ambiguity: WordPress products reach billions of visitors but not registered users
- Meta is genuinely a major open source contributor (React, PHP engine improvements)
- Mullenweg's guess: the 'open source' label may be driven by European regulation on AI models
“that does not give you the freedom to use a software for any purpose right if at some point you have to ask for permission”
“they're calling it open source because there's some European regulation about open source versus proprietary AI models”