Anthropic, Open Source, and Why I Cancelled My Subscription

I was using Claude Code daily. I built my entire blog review system with it. I hit session limits constantly and tried to optimise around them. Now I use OpenCode, an open-source agent that works with any provider.

Then one day (maybe a month or two ago) I pulled the latest OpenCode version and Claude subscription support was just gone. Not deprecated. Not moved to a config flag. Removed entirely, because Anthropic demanded it. On top of that, I kept hitting usage limits on my Pro subscription despite paying $20/month. That issue was opened for Max subscribers but people on every tier were hitting the same thing.

I cancelled my Anthropic subscription. I use GLM-4.7 and GLM-5.1 now through OpenCode with a GLM coding subscription. Considering adding a GitHub Copilot subscription so I can still use Anthropic models through OpenCode's API integration. I still use Claude on the web and on my phone. The model is good. The repeated session limit issues and the company's behavior around open source tools is what pushed me away.

The OpenClaw Story

I'd already been watching Anthropic's relationship with open source tools for a while. Then I came across the OpenClaw story. An open source project that got forced to rename because it had "Clawd" in the name. That sent me down a rabbit hole.

Peter Steinberger (steipete on GitHub) built a personal AI assistant. Originally called Warelay. MIT licensed, supports 20+ messaging channels, and has 343k GitHub stars (yes, really). A legit open source project by any measure. The fastest growing in history in terms of stars.

On January 4, 2026, he renamed it to ClawdBot. Makes sense. It's a bot that uses Claude. Clear, descriptive name. A play on the fact it used Claude without using the name Claude.

Three weeks later, he got a letter from Anthropic's legal team.

The project was renamed to "Moltbot" on January 27, 2026. The commit message read: "refactor: rename clawdbot to moltbot with legacy compat." The maintainer confirmed in GitHub issue #2825: "Moltbot is the official name now. Clawdbot has been letter sent by Anthropic."

That name lasted three days. On January 30, another commit: "refactor: rename to openclaw." The project has been OpenClaw ever since.

An open source project with 343k stars, MIT licensed, built by an independent developer, got a trademark letter because its name contained "Clawd." Yeah, obviously a play on "Claude," but still not "Claude."

And that wasn't all. Anthropic also reportedly changed their API to reject any request whose system prompt contains the phrase "Open Claw." Not a rate limit, not a warning, but a hard block. (This was reported by Theo — he runs t3.gg, covers AI and dev tools — I haven't tested it myself.) If that's accurate, it goes way beyond trademark enforcement. That would be technical suppression of a specific open source project.

What Happened to OpenCode

The OpenCode situation is different but follows the same pattern.

For context: OpenCode works with multiple AI providers. You configure it with credentials for whichever provider you want, and it routes requests to your chosen model. Before all this, Claude subscription access was one of those options. You could use your existing Pro or Max subscription through OpenCode instead of being locked into Anthropic's client.

Anthropic added checks to stop third-party tools from impersonating the Claude Code client. This broke people's ability to use their Claude subscriptions through OpenCode, Cursor, and any other third-party harness.

Then they updated their terms of service to explicitly ban using consumer subscriptions (Pro/Max plans) as authentication for third-party tools. So even people paying Anthropic $20/month for Pro can't legally use that subscription through OpenCode. You have to use the Anthropic harness (Claude Code).

OpenCode had its own PR that removed Claude subscription integration entirely, with "Anthropic legal requests" cited as the reason. Not a technical limitation. A legal demand.

I get protecting your trademark. I get not wanting people to think an unofficial tool is officially affiliated with you. But the OpenCode situation isn't about trademark confusion. It's about controlling which tools can access Claude's API and how.

OpenCode wasn't pretending to be Claude Code. It was using Claude as a provider, the same way it uses ChatGPT or any other model. Anthropic decided they didn't want subscription auth flowing through third-party tools, and they had the legal muscle to enforce it. Their stated justification was something about third-party harnesses interfering with their analytics and causing unusual traffic patterns. At least, that's what I gathered. It's hard to know how much of that is genuine concern versus justifying the walled garden.

The rules around what's allowed are vague enough that even people trying to play by them can't get straight answers. Matt Pocock — whose TypeScript stuff I've used for a while — spent over a month trying to get Anthropic to confirm whether his paid Claude Code course was allowed to exist. Their response: "We're working on it." Repeatedly. When pressed for an ETA, same answer. Theo has called this out too — he believes Anthropic keeps the terms vague intentionally so they can move the goalposts later. That tracks with what I've seen.

The Pattern

Anthropic isn't just another company locking everything down. They built MCP (Model Context Protocol) — the protocol that lets OpenCode talk to external tools. And then gave it away. Fully open source. Anthropic doesn't control it. They offer free Claude Max access to open source maintainers. Their output terms are solid; you own what Claude generates.

But then Claude Code has a public GitHub repo with zero source code. Subscription access is tightly controlled — you can't use what you're paying for through a third-party tool. And their legal team sends trademark letters to open source projects with 343k stars.

Then there's the distillation thing.

I read Anthropic's report accusing DeepSeek, Moonshot, and MiniMax of "distillation attacks" against Claude and something felt off. They claimed 24,000 fraudulent accounts and 16+ million exchanges. Wrapped it in national security framing stating that distilled models could be used for bioweapons, etc. And this isn't the first time — Anthropic previously accused Windsurf, X AI, and OpenAI of distillation and, from what I've read, was wrong each time.

The distillation accusations fit the same pattern. Anthropic claims others are exploiting Claude's openness, uses that to justify tighter restrictions, and those restrictions happen to protect their revenue. Could be genuine security concern. Could be strategic. But it's the same thing I keep seeing.

The only major lab that has released zero open-weight models is also the one arguing most loudly that open-weight models are dangerous. I don't think that's a coincidence.

I initially thought the ClawdBot thing was just standard trademark enforcement. But then I kept looking. I'm not sure if this is a fair reading, honestly. I keep going back and forth on it. But the pattern I keep seeing is decisions being made to be open where it benefits Anthropic, and closed where it protects their revenue.

That's absolutely a valid business strategy. It's just not what "open" means. Especially when most of their competitors are making strides to become more open.

Where I'm At

I'm going to keep using OpenCode for now.

I might be wrong about the intent. Maybe Anthropic has good reasons for each individual decision. The ClawdBot rename could be standard trademark enforcement. The OpenCode crackdown could be about subscription terms or it could legitimately be about analytical data being interfered with by third party harnesses.

But when I look at the pattern, it looks like a company building a walled garden around Claude while also contributing genuinely open infrastructure. I don't have a clean conclusion here. I'm still forming my thinking on this. But I know that my workflow got disrupted, an open source project got renamed three times in a month, and the company responsible for both is the same one that open-sourced MCP.

I just don't understand their actions sometimes.