this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
92 points (97.9% liked)

Selfhosted

40173 readers
927 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

  1. Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.

  2. No spam posting.

  3. Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).

  6. No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

tldr is that you can hide the button that asks for payment and it says "purchase immich" instead of "purchase liscence"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Willdrick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (4 children)

I don't really get what's the fuss about... We've all ran unlicensed trial software (like WinRAR) for years and nobody bat an eye.

[–] paradox2011@lemmy.ml 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I saw a lot of concern in the original github announcement regarding the use of the term "license." People felt it gave the team a legal footing to paywall features down the road and offer them only to licensed users, along with a few other concerns based in the legal implication of the term license. That of course runs counter to their statement that no features will be paywalled ever, so I guess there's still some anxiety over their trustworthiness out there. Understandable given some of the rug pulls that have happened in the open source world over the past year though (i.e Redhat, redis, etc...)

[–] Willdrick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Fair enough, though FUTO already has an anti-rugpull licence AFAIK

[–] paradox2011@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

They do, but I don't think that would apply to Immich. Immich is under the AGPL, and hasn't taken on any FUTO licensing. In a QA they did awhile back they said there was no plans to change it as well, so should be AGPL for the long term.

As far as I've seen, the only connection that Immich has with FUTO is the $1M grant and continued development support. I would imagine any sales from these Immich server purchases are now obligated to go to FUTO, but that's the only connection between the two companies.

[–] possiblylinux127@lemmy.zip 1 points 3 months ago

No it doesn't

There "source first" license is very restrictive and only grants some rights to the users. It doesn't allow forking and continuing a project. (At least not in a way that isn't a legal problem)

load more comments (2 replies)