mirror of
https://github.com/open-webui/open-webui.git
synced 2026-03-25 04:24:30 -05:00
Please improve the license, please! #5022
No Assignees
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies
No dependencies set.
Reference: github-starred/open-webui#5022
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Originally created by @carlosmintfan on GitHub (May 2, 2025).
Check Existing Issues
Problem Description
While I understand that people white-labeling and selling your work without giving back is definitely a problem that should be solved, the new license, in my opinion, is making this project somewhat not-really-open source, no matter how well it is intended. I think that there is a better solution to this problem, and even if not all of my wishes can become true for whatever reason, I‘d still like a certain exception clause to be added, as I‘ll explain below.
Desired Solution you'd like
Before explaining the downsides I see in the current license in the dev branch, I‘d also like to mention that the License link in https://docs.openwebui.com/license#open-webui-license-explained still refers to the good old license in the main branch. Now, let me explain.
The biggest problem (and the one that I hope is the most likely for you to address) is the fact that the new license requires keeping the branding in any derivative unless [some exceptions], but none of these exceptions is related to the size of code copied from your codebase. Say I browse this codebase and encounter some general trick I‘d like to copy into a project of mine, whether it’s open source or proprietary. If this repo was licensed under a normal permissive open-source license, I could just copy it, add your license to an acknowledgements page and perhaps even as a comment into the code (the wording of the BSD licenses is somewhat stricter here as the wording of the MIT license, but perhaps that doesn’t matter) and be done, right?
Now, this license makes that much more complicated. So the first step to ensure freedom of this awesome software is that I can freely copy code without being bound to the branding requirement if that’s for a project with a different UI and/or purpose than Open WebUI.
Secondly, even with that fixed, it’d be great if you could lax the requirements for leaving the branding. Wouldn’t it suffice to say Open WebUI must be prominently mentioned, especially when paying for a derivative, instead of requiring to leave the branding as-is and contribute or get a license to change it? Otherwise it’s simply not really open-open-open-source. And you don’t want to be just OpenAI, do you? You want to be SuperOpenAI, right?
Alternatives Considered
No response
Additional Context
You‘re doing a great job with building this platform. And making it open-source and permissively licensed is awesome. Please don’t disturb that freedom by the new requirements, even if they come out of perfectly good will. I hope my alternative suggestions make sense. Thank you!
@Classic298 commented on GitHub (May 3, 2025):
I disagree with the general thoughts behind your issue raised.
Open Source means the source is open.
Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has to be free to use and open source.
Open WebUI is both.
The issue is, however, that there are hundreds, maybe thousands of unlicensed Open WebUI instances, private and public, who never contributed to Open WebUI, raised a bug, created a PR let alone sponsored the project or purchased additional SLAs or in any other way supported the project, yet claim their instance of Open WebUI was actually their work by rebranding it.
Also the first issue you raised, that you cannot copy neat little code tricks you found in this repo is a non-issue really. If you see a code snippet that you think is smart, you can't copy it 1:1 into your own project anyways (probably). Chances are it is not compatible as-is with whatever you are building on yourself. And if you understand how the code works in principle you can replicate and build something similar by scratch (using AI) too. I don't see how this is an issue - nor do I even think that for copying a 50 line code snippet you have to prominently brand your own software with Open WebUI.
"Prominently mentioned" is subject to relative interpretation and will result in lengthy battles and unsatisfying results. What would stop anyone from putting "derivatibe of Open WebUI" into just a singular HTML file, as a non-visible comment, and claim that this is prominently mentioning Open WebUI?
And if the derivative is paying Open WebUI (sponsorship or SLA/Support/Enterprise licensing), contributing to it or otherwise obtained a permission for rebranding, they can still rebrand.
And if you have less than 50 users, you can also rebrand without issues.
My personal verdict is: this doesn't make Open WebUI any less free to use nor any less open source, and it prevents those Open WebUI imitations that claim this to be their work and even cause issues by redirecting their userbase to Open WebUI and have them ask questions and complain here, whilst the instance operator never contributed a line.
Open Source historically has an important role in backing enterprise grade software around the world. Basically everything is built on top of open source tools, where the creators never received a single thanks or any other kind of support for their work.
This doesn't mean businesses and enterprises and some malicious actors should be allowed to benefit or even misuse it without contributing either money, time, help or anything in that regard.
Free to use
Open Source
But not free to abuse
That's just my opinion.
@tjbck commented on GitHub (May 3, 2025):
Not planned. Feel free to fork.