Because they realize they have enough user base to not slum it for free anymore. A lot of projects are fine just getting the notoriety and consultation dollars, but some people are just looking to build things and flip it for money later. It ebbs and flows over time in either direction. I’d say right now most projects are on the “we’re for sale” side of things.
Comment on Release v0.6.11 · open-webui/open-webui
jeena@piefed.jeena.net 4 weeks ago
Urgh I didn't know about the license change, that's a bummer. How come every project with 'Open' in it's name goes a similar route and becomes not open?
Now it's freeware with available source, but you can't build anything on top of it.
just_another_person@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
nagaram@startrek.website 4 weeks ago
An AI project that’s ultimately just trying to cash out? Say it ain’t so!
yarr@feddit.nl 4 weeks ago
Easy, because they want the social credibility of being open source, but also later, when the project gets big, they want to dictate exactly who uses it and how.
If you care about how your software is used to this degree – don’t open source it! Every open source package I have ever made has come with a permissive license, because I want people to be able to use it however they wish. That’s actual freedom. Unfortunately, a subset of “however they wish” can also be “used to bomb Gaza”, but that is the cost of liberty and freedom. You have to take the good with the bad.
baod_rate@programming.dev 4 weeks ago
I don’t know if “freedom to modify source code” and “committing a genocide” are morally comparable. This seems to undermine your point. I would have picked a different analogy
yarr@feddit.nl 3 weeks ago
That doesn’t undermine my point, that proves my point. Making something “FREE” (as in libre) comes with the consequence that people can use it for whatever they want. I assume you don’t agree with bombing Gaza, hence it is a perfect example of “freedom” leading to poor outcomes.
baod_rate@programming.dev 3 weeks ago
This assumes the audience will agree that genocide is an acceptable tradeoff for software freedoms.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 4 weeks ago
It’s still very permissive, you just can’t remove their branding.
danb@feddit.uk 4 weeks ago
One of the main problems is that this is targeted at forks to limit their possibility (Since you can’t really technically call it something else following the license, and they may come after you via trademarks if you retain it).
OnlyOffice also do this, they prevent changing specific logo use (via sketch interpretation of the AGPLv3) then also prohibit you from using their logo.