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?

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?

They could have just used a GPL license.