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...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1kfhkal/open_we...
> 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?
> 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.
Said differently, which option (sue for trademark infringement, or for license violation) has a lower cost? (including damages)
Open WebUI wants the benefits of OSS and "Open" marketing without the freedoms for why people prefer OSS Software.
"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."
Open-ish source is one thing, but an untested custom license is an issue in itself.