They've switched to a custom license to inhibit competitive forks [1], in their own words [2]:

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1kfhkal/open_we...

Interesting. They mention the following as some of their reasoning for this license:

> They market these rebranded solutions in commercial offerings to customers and organizations, sometimes at a massive markup.

> In some cases, they even go further by intentionally obscuring the fact that Open WebUI is available for free, so that they can charge unsuspecting users outrageous fees for something that should be accessible to everyone.

But that makes me think - if they really cared about this being free, they could have dealt with it by just using AGPLv3 coupled with enforcing their trademark, right?

▲

mythz 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah if they only cared about misuse of their brand they need only enforce their trademark. But they're also arguing the other way and don't want anyone to strip their brand from their forks either:

> bad actors taking our work, stripping the branding, selling it as their own, and giving nothing back.

Contradicting their original BSD License which welcomes anyone freely using, sharing and building on OSS software, even commercial forks. So now its a custom BSD-based license but with the aim of preventing competitive forks.

▲

threecheese 4 days ago | parent [-]

Realistically, how does an open source project enforce a trademark, when that carries a high cost (lawyers)?

Said differently, which option (sue for trademark infringement, or for license violation) has a lower cost? (including damages)

	▲	mythz 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		If you've released your Software under an OSS License you shouldn't be looking to sue anyone for forking and using your library. Open WebUI wants the benefits of OSS and "Open" marketing without the freedoms for why people prefer OSS Software.

▲

Eisenstein 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

The dev has claimed that they are some sort of mission where their LLM gui is going to be responsible for saving humanity with them at the helm. I don't think they are completely rational.

"No matter where humans go—on Earth or across the solar system—independence will be our most critical asset, and tools like these will ensure we don't merely persist but flourish."

"I am willing to dedicate my life to this."

"It's just me, wearing every hat: architect, developer, designer, and strategist."

"I deeply, genuinely care about every single line of code and every feature I put into this platform."

"Whether here on Earth or out among the stars, Open WebUI is built for humanity's next golden age—one household, one organization, and eventually, one planet at a time."

- https://jryng.com/thoughts/why-open-webui

	▲	falcor84 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Wow! Seeing that it was published on the first of January, I can only assume that it was written while deep in a hangover, with the aid of a still drunk LLM.

▲

diffeomorphism 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Out of interest: They talk a lot about how they think/hope their license is not contradictory. Has anybody with legal expertise verified this?

Open-ish source is one thing, but an untested custom license is an issue in itself.

▲

remix2000 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

How is their restriction any less permissive than other OSI-approved licenses' attribution clauses?

	▲	gunalx 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The problem is more that they dint go the OSI approved license with attribution clause, and forced that into a BSD license.

▲

ForHackernews 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

They could have just used a GPL license.