OSS Alternative to Open WebUI – ChatGPT-Like UI, API and CLI
github.com
github.com
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.
EDIT: I also don't see it in Chatbox
- jan.ai
- librechat.ai
- AnythingLLM* 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).
I'm leaning towards this one myself but I'm still early in researching alternatives.
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.
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.
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to fork an old codebase, especially since the newer version has so many bugs already fixed and the old version gets outdated in many aspects fast.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.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/1kfhkal/open_we...
Open-ish source is one thing, but an untested custom license is an issue in itself.
> 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."
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.
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.
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.