[pabs3]

Its deliberate, use a permissive/pushover license to get adoption, then rugpull once you have the userbase who are relying on you, then bathe your VCs in cash.

[sofixa]

You can't make such a claim without any backing. While undoubtedly it's the case for some, I strongly doubt everyone does it on purpose. It's just that orgs mature with time and realise their original naiveté.

Do you have any proof of that? Hell, are OpenWebUI even receiving VC funding?

[pabs3]

I was not referring to Open WebUI, but the general situation of license rugpulls, which is what I assumed the person I replied to was talking about.

[Kudos]

I would bet that there are VCs knocking down their doors right now, and that's what's sparked the license change.

[sofixa]

IMO there's a higher chance they're worried about bigger fish selling their project as a service than VC investment.