21–30 of 60 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's just the most popular, most full-y featured OSS project. Based on history, I don't think changing from a permissive OSS license will allow it to remain the most popular, most full-y featured project, especially in a world of competitors (plenty of which have venture funding).
Curious.. which 'bring your own keys' -style competitors have venture funding?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious.. which 'bring your own keys' -style competitors have venture funding?
Lobechat comes to mind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's just the most popular, most full-y featured OSS project. Based on history, I don't think changing from a permissive OSS license will allow it to remain the most popular, most full-y featured project, especially in a world of competitors (plenty of which have venture funding).
Curious.. which 'bring your own keys' -style competitors have venture funding?
MSTY is the first one that comes to mind though. And if you're willing to stretch your idea of "what competes with OpenWebUI" I know half a dozen startups that let you pass in some set of keys and "build a multi-agent system" in a GUI usually alongside some pared down chat windows.
They cannot just relicense the work of all of their public contributors without them agreeing in writing. This is completely illegitimate. (They don't seem to require signing any contributor agreement.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Curious.. which 'bring your own keys' -style competitors have venture funding?
Is HuggingFace venture funded? Because they have an Apache 2.0 licensed competitor (but it's not very active at a glance). MSTY is the first one that comes to mind though. And if you're willing to stretch your idea of "what competes with OpenWebUI" I know half a dozen startups that let you pass in some set of keys and "build a multi-agent system" in a GUI usually alongside some pared down chat windows.
Could you give names of those startups?
And yeah, Hugging Face is very much venture funded -- they had a modest 4.5b valuation in the last round.. (I just didn't know they had some competing product).
Why does this keep happening? Do people not understand the implications choosing an open source license.in the first place? There are a million licenses, in fact you can just make your own one up! But when you choose a class of license the specifically allows commercial exploitation... you don't get to act wronged when it happens.
Somehow it feels great to be paid, to pay others for the tools, like in every other profession, not so much.
I recently wrote a blog post on software licensing and this more or less feels like the reasoning behind some of the source available licenses like SSPL or the Elastic License.
What sometimes ends up happening is that forks are created (see Redis and Elasticsearch for examples) due to the community being quite upset and that can make it worse for the original project that was trying to protect itself from typically hyperscalers but sometimes just actors that aren’t aligned with the project's goals (that give nothing back and profit themselves).
If you never intend to make money from a project, license it permissively, like MIT or BSD or Apache 2.0 or similar licenses.
If you'd like to make money from the project at some point, consider dual licensing: AGPL or even something like SSPL, alongside commercial licenses for people with different requirements (commercial, proprietary software etc.), maybe with waivers for stuff like companies smaller than X employees or Y global revenue per year.
> But with Open WebUI’s rapid growth and success, we started seeing a pattern we couldn’t ignore: bad actors taking our work, stripping the branding, selling it as their own, and giving nothing back. I recently wrote a blog post on software licensing and this more or less feels like the reasoning behind some of the source available licenses like SSPL or the Elastic License. What sometimes ends up happening is that fo…