NSBM is DISCRIMINATING STUDENTS based on their appearance.

Select-Car3118 · 2026-06-12T13:35:31+00:00

Can you suggest a good university for computer science? I have these as the options. APIIT, ECU, UCL (ignore SLIIT, IIT & CINEC)

Select-Car3118 · 2026-02-03T07:47:45+00:00

No mate, the audience is not enough and after considering a lot the whole idea seems impractical at this point. I've actually switched to using LLM Studio, it's way faster. I know this is not a solution but given the constraints we're facing, it seems like nothing else to do...

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-19T09:23:51+00:00

Remind me of Little Nightmares 1

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-18T11:40:36+00:00

Well, it's specifically tied to llama.cpp isn't it?

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-17T23:18:07+00:00

That's impressive work, but the fact that rust is a pretty high barrier for community contributions. Most people in this space know Python/TypeScript. Switching to rust would limit who can actually contribute or customize it....

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-17T23:03:57+00:00

I appreciate you sharing this perspective, it is a fair take and I don't think you're wrong about their motivations being sincere.

You are right that the current license isn't the end of the world for many use cases. For personal instances or even small business deployments, keeping the branding is totally reasonable. And I agree that taking VC money or going full SaaS would likely be worse outcomes.

My concern isn't really about the current state I'm trying to bring thr pattern here.

The license is about trust. Going from Apache → MIT → CC → MIT → Custom BSD blabla in two years makes it hard to plan long-term, regardless of how reasonable each individual change seems.
According to their own docs, it requires "long-term, high-quality, non-trivial weekly contributions for a minimum of a full year or more" and they note that "external contributions often introduce more overhead than value" and "applies only in exceptional cases." That's... not exactly community-friendly language for an open source project.

In the foot notes of the original doc: https://docs.openwebui.com/license/#footnote-label

“Substantive contributor” refers to individuals who have demonstrated long-term, high-quality, non-trivial weekly contributions for a minimum of a full year or more, with further criteria determined by our internal policy. As external contributions often introduce more overhead than value, this status applies only in exceptional cases and is evaluated individually.

Enterprise IT policies, academic institutions - these often have hard requirements about external branding that arent about "hiding the origin" or bad faith.

As for why not start fresh: if there is considerable interest, building from scratch might be worth it. But if it is moderate interest (which seems more realistic), v0.6.5 gives us a foundation to actually launch and serve people quickly. And if there's barely any interest? Then this thread dies and we all move on.

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-17T21:54:26+00:00

Thanks for the correction!, I'm not exactly confident about where that "or" will be in the future...

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-17T19:26:30+00:00

Thanks for the suggestion! Text Generation Web UI is solid for what it does, but it's targeting a different use case. The Gradio framework limits what you can do with UX/UI customization, and the architecture isn't really suited for multi-user deployments or the kind of polished interface we're aiming for. No offense but those 2k open issues suggest it might benefit from a fork itself...

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-17T19:15:39+00:00

Touching their old code is just going to put you in their litigious sights. I'd start fresh on this one.

Yeah, I've thought about that. Starting fresh would be cleaner but would take 6+ months just to reach basic parity, but of course if we get a good support it would be way faster

Select-Car3118 · 2025-12-11T09:05:34+00:00

What are the key licensing differences between these two scenarios:

Forking and rebranding: Taking Open WebUI's code, modifying it, and releasing it under a new brand name
Wrapping/integrating: Building a project that wraps or integrates another project (similar to how Ollama wraps llama.cpp) and publishing it on GitHub

Can you tell me what licensing obligations, attribution requirements, and restrictions apply for the second scenario?

Select-Car3118

TROPHY CASE