Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

docs.openwebui.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 60 posts

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#41

Post by pjmlp »

zephyreon wrote: post #5

Asked and answered but for the sake of discourse, what is the best model/structure for open source projects? Every OSS project that reaches critical mass seems to believe changing the license to something source-available is the only option. Is it or isn’t it? Why or why not? Does it make sense to go with a different OSS license? If it does, which license would you recommend, and in what case(s)?

Dual licence.

Downstream should be under the same conditions they are willing to support upstream.

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#42

Post by pjmlp »

pabs3 wrote: post #33
zephyreon wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Moreso the structure of an OSS project, which includes the funding model. The license choice is arguably one of the most important decisions yet people seem to get bitten by it quite often in my view.

Depends on your goals, but I would say the default should be AGPLv3 without CLA, funded by donations and maybe sponsorship and other no-strings-attached sources, with the money going into a non-profit foundation, and the trademarks, domains and other assets owned by the foundation, and the copyrights owned by individual contributors. https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...

Except that isn't sustainable as a business, try to get a mortgage with such model.

Hence I much rather go for dual license approach.

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#43

Post by Lammy »

> 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. That’s not open source—that’s exploitation.

That is Open Source, and “Open Source” has always been the corpo-friendly version of “Free Software”. It's very funny to see so many people pointing out “This doesn't meet the Open Source Definition!!!!” like there's any reason to care. OSI themselves will tell you that “open source” as we know it was a product of AOLTimeWarner's desire to get people to work for them for free: https://opensource.org/history

“The [February 3rd, 1998] conferees believed the pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated Netscape to release their code illustrated a valuable way to engage with potential software users and developers, and convince them to create and improve source code by participating in an engaged community. The conferees also believed that it would be useful to have a single label that identified this approach and distinguished it from the philosophically- and politically-focused label ‘free software.’”

I want philosophically-focused software that puts the rights of human-persons above the desires of corporate-persons. Fuck “Open Source” lol

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#44

Post by KronisLV »

pabs3 wrote: post #32
pabs3 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://blog.kronis.dev/blog/software-licenses-and-hyperscal...

I note that the GPL does not require publishing the source code, only distributing it to users of the binary code.

Thanks for the note! To be honest, I didn’t link/submit the post myself, because it’s far too casual and like a stream of consciousness for the most part.

That said, aside from helping with writer’s block, I guess the distilled conclusions are more or less the ones in my comment above: permissive licenses for non-commercial stuff, dual licensing if you intend to make money.

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#45

Post by PeterStuer »

So did they find out they made a mistake going with the BSD license, and correct it to be more in line with their original intentions?

Many here are responding as if they are making some moral u-turn, or calling them out for not being FOSS license cognisati from the very start.

And I get it. Most are not just 'rebranding and shipping'. You incorporated this into your own system as a frontend to your own specialized AI solution, and now you feel rugpulled.

I guess the true FOSS solution would be fork and backport changes. But that would mean someone steps up as the maintainer if this community of users wants to keep sharing the costs.

While not an easy option for all usecases, some could also bite the bullet and switch to LibreChat wich is MIT licensed.

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#46

Post by roryirvine »

kmeisthax wrote: post #18
pabs3 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They address that, for forks you have to make it clear that it is a fork of Open WebUI.

The LICENSE[0] doesn't say that. That's merely Open WebUI's interpretation of their own license. Now, a judge would probably consider that estoppel, but you don't want to rely on that. Using the license on its own, you effectively are saying: - Don't use our branding to endorse your fork - Don't remove our branding from your fork The only way to satisfy both of these is to not fork. [0] https://raw.githubusercontent.…

Ugh, that's a real mess - they've clearly just invented their own clauses and tacked them on to the end of the previous 3 clause BSD license.

Technically, they're allowed to do that - the BSD-3 license is itself public domain - but it's usually a pretty bad idea. Have the new clauses been written by a copyright lawyer, or at least been vetted by one?

The fact that this is Open WebUI's second license change this year should be a red flag for anyone considering contributing to or relying on their software.

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#47

Post by sofixa »

Kudos wrote: post #39
sofixa wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make such a claim without any backing. While undoubtedly it's the case for some, I strongly doubt everyone does it on purpose. It's just that orgs mature with time and realise their original naiveté. Do you have any proof of that? Hell, are OpenWebUI even receiving VC funding?

I would bet that there are VCs knocking down their doors right now, and that's what's sparked the license change.

IMO there's a higher chance they're worried about bigger fish selling their project as a service than VC investment.

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#49

Post by elaus »

Do you have any recommendations for self-hosted, truly open-source, "ChatGPT"-style interfaces (e.g., a UI for chat, RAG, image generation, etc.)?

I use Open WebUI a lot, but it's lacking in a few aspects (UI, huge Docker images), and its focus on commercialization does not motivate me to contribute.

Re: Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA

#50

Post by camgunz »

Lammy wrote: post #43

> 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. That’s not open source—that’s exploitation. That is Open Source, and “Open Source” has always been the corpo-friendly version of “Free Software”. It's very funny to see so many people pointing out “This doesn't meet the Open Source Definition!!!!” like there's any rea…

The list of "we used the MIT license and now super regret people are using it exactly as intended" grows and grows. It's wild how (A)GPL took such a bad rap, which it's (seemingly?) exactly what projects like this wanted.
Post reply on HN