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

#1

Post by nirv » Tue, May 06, 2025, 3:28 AM UTC

Open WebUI changed license from BSD-3 to Open WebUI license with CLA
docs.openwebui.com

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

#2

Post by never_inline » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:00 AM UTC

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

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

#3

Post by BeefySwain » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:00 AM UTC

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.

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

#4

Post by DetroitThrow » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:02 AM UTC

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).

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).

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

#5

Post by zephyreon » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:03 AM UTC

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)?

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

#6

Post by robertclaus » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:03 AM UTC

How does keeping the branding in place reduce misleading customers? Won't it look even more like Open WebUI supports the forked product?

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

#7

Post by pabs3 » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:05 AM UTC

robertclaus wrote: post #6

How does keeping the branding in place reduce misleading customers? Won't it look even more like Open WebUI supports the forked product?

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

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

#8

Post by pabs3 » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:07 AM UTC

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)?

Do you mean funding model? I agree with the Ladybird developers, the best model is to accept donations and other no-strings-attached funding.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YM7pDMLvr4

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

#9

Post by robertclaus » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:08 AM UTC

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.

I think there's some selection bias. In my experience many folks that work on open source projects tend to lean more altruistic and good natured - so understanding the license doesn't mean expecting exploitation.

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

#10

Post by nine_k » Tue, May 06, 2025, 4:08 AM UTC

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.

The license is still open source. There's only a branding requirement added. Not much unlike "you must retain this notice" in other open-source licenses, like the Apache license.

I frankly find LGPL more useful in cases like that, but it apparently does not work for some parties. Open-source + commercial licensing also looks like a good balance between keeping the community-developed code accessible to everyone, while allowing the parties who don't want to share to pay for the privilege.