Man Lemmy is so much better than Reddit.
Evidently there’s some difference to the approach. I’m not familiar with the WinRAR days, but they specifically address that in this video. I don’t know if it being similar to WinRAR is a good thing or bad thing in your book, but maybe you’ll enjoy the video.
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 😉
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.
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.
I feel like there’s a pun semi-buried here…
Privacy is a marketing angle right now for sure. I hate seeing companies like apple advertise to the vague privacy concerns of the general public. Companies like Proton are also making money based on privacy concerns.
As far as I’ve seen, FUTO’s approach is to fund and support independent developers who have a high skill level and well thought out piece of software. They focus on software that is Open, or source available for auditing and viewing purposes, privacy respecting and free of any kind of advertising. They also are pushing for a new culture of payment to these developers that is not a donation to support, but a purchase to use. They don’t insist on the purchase though, you can use any piece of FUTO sponsored software free of charge indefinitely.
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.
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…)
Yeah, functionally it’s the same. However I think it is a big perceptual change to be in line with the FUTO principle of “we want to make good software that is open and accessible, but we would also like you to pay us for it so we can continue this project sustainably.” That’s a bit of a contrast with the general open source approach of “I’m writing this software as a service to others, make a donation if you’d like to support my work.”
Personally I think the move towards a more structured buy it if you can mindset is great. I’ve seen too many projects get abandoned because of lack of time and resources and then shift from developer to developer, sometimes getting better, sometimes worse.
Is user data stored on air-gapped computers? I’d be very surprised if it was. Offline doesn’t necessarily mean innaccessible, and in fact user data must be accessible as a database on the company’s intranet in some way in order to perform the search and removal efforts. Plus there’s the (albeit small) possibility of rogue employees deciding to do something nefarious with their personal access to that info.
Trusted to do their job? Personally, I think so, and would go as far as to say the main contenders are not doing anything fishy with your data.
I think the trouble comes in with the fact that they become a high-value target to hackers because of how much information they have on their customers. I’m sure that they take a lot of technical precautions to safeguard user data, but for me personally, the risk is not worth the value proposition.
Certainly not, as a resource they are invaluable. Just a few trends that I personally take in to account when it comes to their leadership. Kind of like recognizing a news outlet has a slight political leaning.
Yeah there was drama between the current team and the original founder of Privacytools.io
Long story short, they disagreed on how to manage the site and had differences regarding ownership of contributed content, so the bulk of the team started up their own site in an effort to separate from the founder. Probably good given the monetization efforts the founder was starting to incorporate in the site (and is currently doing last i checked).
It does seem wrong to me that they archived the privacytools.io reddit though, I can only take that as them wnting to drive traffic to their new site and subreddit. They should have let their work stand on its own merits.
I’m unaware of any specific failings as well, but I think there can be some issue with the very specific set of priorities that shape their recommendations. It was one of their main admins that corresponded for Techlore at the Synology conference in the video mentioned by the OP, promoting closed source software. That’s all based on your values though, as closed source software can still be privacy respecting. All in all they are a good resource, but it seems like they, along with Techlore, have shifted focus to convenience and centralization instead of more rigorous compartmentalization and FOSS.
I’ve been following Techlore from the early days Go Incognito, and I’ve definitely noticed a change in his content too. He seems to have lost some of his idealism and is more focused on convenience and the just works mentality. The shift started to happen around the time he started collaborating with the admin team from Privacy guides more often.
I get it that a person may get to a place where their approach to privacy takes on a more general and unfocused approach, but his videos do seem a little tone deaf to the specific audience he spent years creating 😕
I replied to a similar comment above ☝️. They call it a server license, but all the language surrounding it is centered on user counts. They are extremely generous giving the “unlimited trial period” with the high quality of Immich, but the way the licensing is being handled is just kind if confusing. At it’s root, it’s essentially just a request for people to pay for the service, but they’ve complicated it with the word choice.
Me too. It’s a quality app, the only other open source keyboard that rivals it in my mind is Heliboard.
I’d argue that’s just a license for 4+ users as the only differentiation is the dollar amount. In fact one of Alex Tran’s comments in the github announcement was that they simply capped the price at $100 to keep it from getting too expensive for instances with many users. It’s definitely licensing based on users, not servers.
I would be much more comfortable if their licensing language was centered on licensing a self-hosted server, not user amounts. Paying for individual users (IMO) is best done as a hosted service with a monthly fee. They’re probably a ways from being able to implement that though.
EDIT: they’ve adjusted the language and integration of buying the Immich software. It’s much clearer and balanced now. You can find the new info on their github announcements page, or likely in the notes of their next immich release.
ORIGINAL COMMENT
I was really looking forward to them opening a compensation option as I got in after they had taken down donation links, but this is all a bit weird. There is some good discussion happening on the github announcement page. I’ll probably hold at version 1.108 for awhile until the dust settles.
I’ve gone through quite a few FUTO videos since they started sponsoring Immich, and it seems like the issue is that they are essentially an organization of engineers that don’t have a strong background in the legalese of licensing (thus the lack of attention to the wording of the original FUTO temporary license). Their intentions and goals are solid from my perspective and the software they promote is fantastic, but it feels very much like an org run by idealistic engineers without much of a PR presence. The best PR they have is Louis Rossman, take that as you will 😄
All that being said, I have paid for a few of their other pieces of software that are single user. The part I’m not overly fond of is that it seems to be a payment for each individual user, and not a payment to be able to run the server itself. I’m sure there is rational behind it, but it just feels like this whole licensing element isn’t fully baked yet.
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.