Been using both, like Chatbox for how snappy it is, but is local only, vs Lobechat which allows you to setup centralized host to have shared host across clients but feels a bit clunkier.
I've mistakenly given Chatbox a new feature, sorry :). In LobeChat, after you select a particular model, it enables a mini-settings menu next to the model that lets you set caching, deep thinking, and thinking token consumption.
I hoped that someone would fork OpenWebUI before the license change an maintain a OSS Version. Like Valkey¹ is the OSS Fork of Redis and OpenSearch² is the OSS Fork of ElasticSearch.
That might still be an option, all code before a license change falls under the license at that time.
A new license legally becomes active once it has been made public (i.e. it is committed to the source tree) and is not retroactive (for legal reasons).
And because of this, unless the owner/maintainer is willing to nuke a huge chunk of the history within their public repository (with all repercussions which might come with it) it is still possible to make a safe fork of a open source / open core product suddenly moving into a different direction. Time travel to the point before the new license was added to the repository, and fork from that point in time.
The owner/maintainer involved might absolutely not like that but legally they have no choice to allow it, given the license and its permissions at that particular moment in time in the repo.
> That might still be an option, all code before a license change falls under the license at that time.
This is technically true, but as more time passes, it will be more and more unlikely that someone is willing to fork an old codebase, especially since the newer version has so many bugs already fixed and the old version gets outdated in many aspects fast.
So if there is not any active fork right now that is backed by a community, then it's more likely that we would see alternatives coming up like the one OP mentioned here.
If somebody forks this project, I dare you to name it "Open Open Web UI". If they threaten you, just rename to "Open WebAI", "Open UI Web", and other permutations, until their legal budget runs dry.
Clearly this company is following OpenAI's playbook- start with lofty OSS ideals, put "open" in your name, then fall down a slippery slope.
Interesting. They mention the following as some of their reasoning for this license:
> 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?
Yeah if they only cared about misuse of their brand they need only enforce their trademark. But they're also arguing the other way and don't want anyone to strip their brand from their forks either:
> 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.
The dev has claimed that they are some sort of mission where their LLM gui is going to be responsible for saving humanity with them at the helm. I don't think they are completely rational.
"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."
Wow! Seeing that it was published on the first of January, I can only assume that it was written while deep in a hangover, with the aid of a still drunk LLM.
I've always thought it was incredibly rude to call this project something as incredibly generic as "Open WebUI". For one it's impossible to find documentation because it's so generic as tl be utterly meaningless, and also you're intentionally confusing any and all open web UI projects past and future.
Not to mention it's just janky and hard to work with. And of course every bit of the official documentation is LLM slop. The only way I've been able to navigate is to use another LLM to tell me what these settings are for. Said LLM, having ingested the LLM slop documentation, also produces garbage that's barely correct.
OpenWebUI and similar ChatGPT-lite interfaces are a bad UI/UX for LLMs. "Normies" should not be using local models and those who want local models should be exposed to the settings/complexity that projects like oobabooga/sillytavern/comfyUI force a user to educate themselves about (i.e. LLM sampler settings, chat templates, etc). It's telling that the best AI generated content is made by people using these prosumer style projects, and not using simplified trash like OpenWebUI.
The proliferation of bad UI in consumption of AI systems has done unfathomable damage to discoverability of LLM features, especially new innovations in LLMs like far better sampling algorithms (i.e. min_p). Users are massively harmed by the features they don't know about and wish they were using but don't/can't because they are shepherded into the most brain-dead simple UI possible.
If we had a society of actual engineers and hackers, sure.
However, LLMs for the vast majority of people are simple chatbot oracles. The people paying exorbinant wealth in investments are aiming for essentially the Apple of AI where it magically just works and creates a new market to redefine the paradigm.
LLMs are yet again another cyclical cycle where ideas influence material reality and vice versa. Magic is seen to be worth more than the wizard and his tools behind the curtain. The market is hoping that the masses don't find out about the wizard and his tools, so the illusion can continue to live and provide the basis for dreams.
Open WebUI also lets you tweak those parameters, BTW.
How does this compare to the already established open source solutions such as Chatbox (https://github.com/chatboxai/chatbox), or Lobechat (https://github.com/lobehub/lobe-chat)?
Been using both, like Chatbox for how snappy it is, but is local only, vs Lobechat which allows you to setup centralized host to have shared host across clients but feels a bit clunkier.
One of the biggest differences I noticed off the bat is llms includes prompt caching which I'm not sure I've seen in any other self hosted UI options
I see Lobe and Chatbox both have prompt caching toggles, are you referring to something else?
I've mistakenly given Chatbox a new feature, sorry :). In LobeChat, after you select a particular model, it enables a mini-settings menu next to the model that lets you set caching, deep thinking, and thinking token consumption.
Ah that must be new since the last time I tried lobechat
Where do you see that? I can't seem to find it in the web or desktop apps for lobechat.
EDIT: I also don't see it in Chatbox
It would be good to share other OSS alternatives here, some alternatives I've seen mentioned in Reddit threads:
GitHub links:
- https://github.com/janhq/jan
- https://github.com/danny-avila/LibreChat
- https://github.com/Mintplex-Labs/anything-llm
Witsy is very good.
* https://github.com/nbonamy/witsy
They don't really do a good job describing the features, but you can use it for any OpenAI compatible local API as well (llama.cpp, koboldcpp, etc).
https://github.com/agent0ai/agent-zero
I'm leaning towards this one myself but I'm still early in researching alternatives.
I hoped that someone would fork OpenWebUI before the license change an maintain a OSS Version. Like Valkey¹ is the OSS Fork of Redis and OpenSearch² is the OSS Fork of ElasticSearch.
[1]: https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey
[2]: https://github.com/opensearch-project/OpenSearch
That might still be an option, all code before a license change falls under the license at that time.
A new license legally becomes active once it has been made public (i.e. it is committed to the source tree) and is not retroactive (for legal reasons).
And because of this, unless the owner/maintainer is willing to nuke a huge chunk of the history within their public repository (with all repercussions which might come with it) it is still possible to make a safe fork of a open source / open core product suddenly moving into a different direction. Time travel to the point before the new license was added to the repository, and fork from that point in time.
The owner/maintainer involved might absolutely not like that but legally they have no choice to allow it, given the license and its permissions at that particular moment in time in the repo.
> That might still be an option, all code before a license change falls under the license at that time.
This is technically true, but as more time passes, it will be more and more unlikely that someone is willing to fork an old codebase, especially since the newer version has so many bugs already fixed and the old version gets outdated in many aspects fast.
So if there is not any active fork right now that is backed by a community, then it's more likely that we would see alternatives coming up like the one OP mentioned here.
It is honestly ridiculous that "Open WebUI" made it past the US trademark office.
https://www.trademarkia.com/open-webui-99027970
If somebody forks this project, I dare you to name it "Open Open Web UI". If they threaten you, just rename to "Open WebAI", "Open UI Web", and other permutations, until their legal budget runs dry.
Clearly this company is following OpenAI's playbook- start with lofty OSS ideals, put "open" in your name, then fall down a slippery slope.
Isn’t openwebui also oss?
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...
[2] https://docs.openwebui.com/license/
Interesting. They mention the following as some of their reasoning for this license:
> 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?
Yeah if they only cared about misuse of their brand they need only enforce their trademark. But they're also arguing the other way and don't want anyone to strip their brand from their forks either:
> 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.
Realistically, how does an open source project enforce a trademark, when that carries a high cost (lawyers)?
Said differently, which option (sue for trademark infringement, or for license violation) has a lower cost? (including damages)
If you've released your Software under an OSS License you shouldn't be looking to sue anyone for forking and using your library.
Open WebUI wants the benefits of OSS and "Open" marketing without the freedoms for why people prefer OSS Software.
The dev has claimed that they are some sort of mission where their LLM gui is going to be responsible for saving humanity with them at the helm. I don't think they are completely rational.
"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."
- https://jryng.com/thoughts/why-open-webui
Wow! Seeing that it was published on the first of January, I can only assume that it was written while deep in a hangover, with the aid of a still drunk LLM.
Out of interest: They talk a lot about how they think/hope their license is not contradictory. Has anybody with legal expertise verified this?
Open-ish source is one thing, but an untested custom license is an issue in itself.
How is their restriction any less permissive than other OSI-approved licenses' attribution clauses?
The problem is more that they dint go the OSI approved license with attribution clause, and forced that into a BSD license.
They could have just used a GPL license.
Hustlers will always hustle
[dead]
I've always thought it was incredibly rude to call this project something as incredibly generic as "Open WebUI". For one it's impossible to find documentation because it's so generic as tl be utterly meaningless, and also you're intentionally confusing any and all open web UI projects past and future.
Not to mention it's just janky and hard to work with. And of course every bit of the official documentation is LLM slop. The only way I've been able to navigate is to use another LLM to tell me what these settings are for. Said LLM, having ingested the LLM slop documentation, also produces garbage that's barely correct.
It's a bad project.
I’ve created a native, cross-platform ollama client in Qt C++ called Vox (https://get-vox.com). For those interested, you can join the waitlist.
I wonder if there are similar projects like this but built on top of something like the cline sdk, opencode or acp?
OpenWebUI and similar ChatGPT-lite interfaces are a bad UI/UX for LLMs. "Normies" should not be using local models and those who want local models should be exposed to the settings/complexity that projects like oobabooga/sillytavern/comfyUI force a user to educate themselves about (i.e. LLM sampler settings, chat templates, etc). It's telling that the best AI generated content is made by people using these prosumer style projects, and not using simplified trash like OpenWebUI.
The proliferation of bad UI in consumption of AI systems has done unfathomable damage to discoverability of LLM features, especially new innovations in LLMs like far better sampling algorithms (i.e. min_p). Users are massively harmed by the features they don't know about and wish they were using but don't/can't because they are shepherded into the most brain-dead simple UI possible.
If we had a society of actual engineers and hackers, sure.
However, LLMs for the vast majority of people are simple chatbot oracles. The people paying exorbinant wealth in investments are aiming for essentially the Apple of AI where it magically just works and creates a new market to redefine the paradigm.
LLMs are yet again another cyclical cycle where ideas influence material reality and vice versa. Magic is seen to be worth more than the wizard and his tools behind the curtain. The market is hoping that the masses don't find out about the wizard and his tools, so the illusion can continue to live and provide the basis for dreams.
Open WebUI also lets you tweak those parameters, BTW.