Hello everybody, Alex here! After the last announcement on a wording change in response to our mishap of using the words licensed and unlicensed, the team and I gave it a long hard thought over the...
tldr is that you can hide the button that asks for payment and it says “purchase immich” instead of “purchase liscence”
Why do you think you aren’t really buying it? Is it because they allow you to run it without paying money for it?
I don’t think the definition of “purchasing” software should be defined by whether you can run the service without paying or not. I think it’s best defined as paying money for something that you like and want to exchange value for. In my book that’s nothing near a dark pattern, as I can’t imagine anyone being confused by it, let alone mistakenly believing there is missing features that they won’t get until they buy.
Buying confers ownership of something even if it’s just a legal agreement like a software license. No ownership over immich is being conferred, nothing is being conveyed to anyone so it’s incorrect to term it a purchase, much less a purchase of immich.
Ownership is being conferred by purchasing immich, that’s what the product key codes they’ve started using indicate.
That is the fundamemental change in the way they are offering Immich: if you pay, you are provided with proof of ownership (product key). If you don’t, you are using it as a part of an indefinent trial period.
No, no ownership is being conferred except to a number, the supporters club key let’s call it. That is what you are buying, it’s like an NFT. And just like NFTs it’s being marketed as though you are purchasing the work itself which you absolutely are not doing. You are paying for the right to say you paid.
If you don’t pay you are in exactly the same state as if you paid regarding your license to use the software, it’s licensed to you under the terms of the agplv3. If they were selling a support contract that would be fine too, but again, no, you get no extra support over what anyone posting a issue on the tracker will get. Even if it were a support contract then it should be made clear that is what you buy.
The technicality of usage rights is irrelevant, the developer is asking you to pay a set price that they’ve set as the total they would like to be reimbursed for providing the development service. That’s not a contribution, that’s a purchase. They’re generous people though, so they won’t restrict your use of the software if you choose not to pay.
Maybe you make donations to FOSS developers regularly. Unfortunately, I did not in the past. While I always intended to, it just slipped through the cracks. After running in to FUTO and the software they sponsor, I’ve been motivated to donate to or purchase much of the free software I’m using, and it’s entirely because of the way they approach their relationship with the user.
If you feel like that’s a dark pattern, or that your payment would only be purchasing an empty NFT, then I guess that’s your choice. But purchasing FOSS applications provides an incredibly important line of support to developers who stem the tide of surveillance capitalism and the digital abuse that big tech has filled our world with. Call it a donation, contribution or purchase price. In any case you are exchanging value for something that has made your life better and supporting the person who made that possible.
Maybe it would help to view the cost of Immich as purchasing a ethics NFT. Sure, you have no observable difference in the material world, but you as a person have affirmed your ethical values through reciprocal action with someone who shares those values 😉
Technicality of usage rights is very relevant, framing as a purchase where it actually isn’t is dishonest and the fact that they make more money being dishonest doesn’t make it right. Other than that you used an awful lot of words to basically agree with me.
I’ve basically agreed with you this whole time, see my initial comment regarding the difference between the previous comtribution model and the new request for purchase:
Yeah, functionally it’s the same.
However we’re drawing different conclusions about the situation. You say it’s misleading and morally wrong to refer to “buying” this software, I say it isn’t and that it’s actually a helpful perceptual change in fostering support from their users.
I don’t really think there’s anything else to say beyond that. If you don’t like how Immich is handling their software, don’t use it.
Why do you think you aren’t really buying it? Is it because they allow you to run it without paying money for it?
I don’t think the definition of “purchasing” software should be defined by whether you can run the service without paying or not. I think it’s best defined as paying money for something that you like and want to exchange value for. In my book that’s nothing near a dark pattern, as I can’t imagine anyone being confused by it, let alone mistakenly believing there is missing features that they won’t get until they buy.
Buying confers ownership of something even if it’s just a legal agreement like a software license. No ownership over immich is being conferred, nothing is being conveyed to anyone so it’s incorrect to term it a purchase, much less a purchase of immich.
Ownership is being conferred by purchasing immich, that’s what the product key codes they’ve started using indicate.
That is the fundamemental change in the way they are offering Immich: if you pay, you are provided with proof of ownership (product key). If you don’t, you are using it as a part of an indefinent trial period.
No, no ownership is being conferred except to a number, the supporters club key let’s call it. That is what you are buying, it’s like an NFT. And just like NFTs it’s being marketed as though you are purchasing the work itself which you absolutely are not doing. You are paying for the right to say you paid.
If you don’t pay you are in exactly the same state as if you paid regarding your license to use the software, it’s licensed to you under the terms of the agplv3. If they were selling a support contract that would be fine too, but again, no, you get no extra support over what anyone posting a issue on the tracker will get. Even if it were a support contract then it should be made clear that is what you buy.
The technicality of usage rights is irrelevant, the developer is asking you to pay a set price that they’ve set as the total they would like to be reimbursed for providing the development service. That’s not a contribution, that’s a purchase. They’re generous people though, so they won’t restrict your use of the software if you choose not to pay.
Maybe you make donations to FOSS developers regularly. Unfortunately, I did not in the past. While I always intended to, it just slipped through the cracks. After running in to FUTO and the software they sponsor, I’ve been motivated to donate to or purchase much of the free software I’m using, and it’s entirely because of the way they approach their relationship with the user.
If you feel like that’s a dark pattern, or that your payment would only be purchasing an empty NFT, then I guess that’s your choice. But purchasing FOSS applications provides an incredibly important line of support to developers who stem the tide of surveillance capitalism and the digital abuse that big tech has filled our world with. Call it a donation, contribution or purchase price. In any case you are exchanging value for something that has made your life better and supporting the person who made that possible.
Maybe it would help to view the cost of Immich as purchasing a ethics NFT. Sure, you have no observable difference in the material world, but you as a person have affirmed your ethical values through reciprocal action with someone who shares those values 😉
Technicality of usage rights is very relevant, framing as a purchase where it actually isn’t is dishonest and the fact that they make more money being dishonest doesn’t make it right. Other than that you used an awful lot of words to basically agree with me.
I’ve basically agreed with you this whole time, see my initial comment regarding the difference between the previous comtribution model and the new request for purchase:
However we’re drawing different conclusions about the situation. You say it’s misleading and morally wrong to refer to “buying” this software, I say it isn’t and that it’s actually a helpful perceptual change in fostering support from their users.
I don’t really think there’s anything else to say beyond that. If you don’t like how Immich is handling their software, don’t use it.
You misspelled gaslighting as “helpful perceptual change”, try again.