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

51–60 of 60 posts

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

#51

Post by wkat4242 »

kmeisthax wrote: post #16

Any time someone uses the word "sustainable" in regards to a FOSS project, I know they're buttering up the community as they plan to make the project not FOSS anymore. In this particular case, it's not as bad as that, as Open WebUI is merely introducing a more onerous version of the BSD advertising clause. BSD 4-clause was considered a FOSS license but, in practice, demanding specific forms of attribution was incredi…

OpenWebUI has always had commercial inclinations. You can tell by the way they're promoting their website for plugins. As long as I can still use the free version it's fine by me. But not sure if I'd pay for it. It's just a web interface really. If it would become paid I'd just move to another one.

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

#52

Post by soraminazuki »

riffraff wrote: post #19
kmeisthax wrote: post #16

Any time someone uses the word "sustainable" in regards to a FOSS project, I know they're buttering up the community as they plan to make the project not FOSS anymore. In this particular case, it's not as bad as that, as Open WebUI is merely introducing a more onerous version of the BSD advertising clause. BSD 4-clause was considered a FOSS license but, in practice, demanding specific forms of attribution was incredi…

I think CLA signing is fine if the projects is owned by a reputable organization (Apache, FSF, whatever). If the project is controlled by a commercial entity, you just have to understand it will likely change in a way you disagree with.

A CLA is all about changing the terms of the deal after the deal. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which that can be legitimate.

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

#53

Post by never_inline »

nirv wrote: post #13
never_inline wrote: post #2

What really is the moat of openwebui? I have seen at least 4 - 5 react UIs with similar functionality (chat, RAG, document library).

Not sure about the moat, it's mostly a SvelteKit web app with extra utils after all. But it has a rather unique combination of advanced features (RAG integrations, workspaces[1], pipelines[2], code execution[3], MCP integration[4], etc.) and a user-friendly "production grade" interface. I've built a dependency for OWUI using many of these advanced features, and now I'm trying to figure out where to migrate with no ob…

It's RAG never worked for me tbh. I thought it was simply because I didn't have Gpu.

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

#54

Post by pabs3 »

sofixa wrote: post #38
pabs3 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its deliberate, use a permissive/pushover license to get adoption, then rugpull once you have the userbase who are relying on you, then bathe your VCs in cash.

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 was not referring to Open WebUI, but the general situation of license rugpulls, which is what I assumed the person I replied to was talking about.

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

#55

Post by riffraff »

soraminazuki wrote: post #52
riffraff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think CLA signing is fine if the projects is owned by a reputable organization (Apache, FSF, whatever). If the project is controlled by a commercial entity, you just have to understand it will likely change in a way you disagree with.

A CLA is all about changing the terms of the deal after the deal. It's hard to imagine a scenario in which that can be legitimate.

The scenario is that the world in which those terms were written changed.

E.g. the original GPL or Apache licenses did not consider patents, DRM or Tivoization, but the modern versions do.

I think it's legitimate for a project to say "we think we should address these issues but we didn't think of them" and update their license.

I'm not saying this is always the case, but it's the reason I think it's ok to sign a CLA for an organization you trust: it's _likely_ you'd also trust their choice to change a license.

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

#56

Post by Gud »

pjmlp wrote: post #27
BeefySwain wrote: post #3

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.

Two key reasons, they don't understand the implications, and many developers are cheapskates nowadays, they wouldn't have survived in old days until 2000's, where we paid for everything, or pirated it. Somehow it feels great to be paid, to pay others for the tools, like in every other profession, not so much.

There was a lot of tools available for free in the the 90's. Both the BSDs and Linux existed.

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

#57

Post by wkat4242 »

Gud wrote: post #56
pjmlp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two key reasons, they don't understand the implications, and many developers are cheapskates nowadays, they wouldn't have survived in old days until 2000's, where we paid for everything, or pirated it. Somehow it feels great to be paid, to pay others for the tools, like in every other profession, not so much.

There was a lot of tools available for free in the the 90's. Both the BSDs and Linux existed.

Yes but the quality difference was bigger. And there were big gaps, eg until OpenOffice there was no decent alternative for MS Office. Most SDKs and IDEs cost money too (like the big visual studio still does)

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

#58

Post by nirv »

never_inline wrote: post #53
nirv wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure about the moat, it's mostly a SvelteKit web app with extra utils after all. But it has a rather unique combination of advanced features (RAG integrations, workspaces[1], pipelines[2], code execution[3], MCP integration[4], etc.) and a user-friendly "production grade" interface. I've built a dependency for OWUI using many of these advanced features, and now I'm trying to figure out where to migrate with no ob…

It's RAG never worked for me tbh. I thought it was simply because I didn't have Gpu.

I tried it once, and I couldn't run RAG without the GPU either (only using external APIs). Considering that they pull all the heavy deps even with the local compute flags disabled, I assume this is just a poorly supported case. Which is really unfortunate.

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

#59

Post by pabs3 »

Disposal8433 wrote: post #35
pabs3 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're right, but it's equivalent to publishing because all users can have the source code AND can then distribute it freely once at least one user has it.

There are some potential scenarios where they aren't necessarily equivalent:

Your users don't know what source code is.

Your users don't bother to look at what they downloaded to find the code therein.

Your users aren't developers and they don't know any devs, so having the source isn't useful to them, so even if they see the code they won't redistribute.

Your users find the code a competitive advantage and don't want to spread that around. Its also too expensive for most organisations to obtain the code too.

You deliver binary and source, but then disincentivise redistribution by cutting off access to something else, like updates. This is what grsecurity and RedHat do. There was one leak of grsec, but that quickly became obsolete.

Post reply on HN