• Fillicia@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    I consider open source software to be community owned/maintained so I never liked the idea of selling the software. It makes much more sense to my eyes to sell services surrounding the software be it support, customizations, or even hosted services.

    I can’t really get over selling a “license” for a software that is expected to still be maintained by unpaid contributors. Especially under an AGPL license where any licensing changes has to be approved by every contributors.

    • geography082@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah this getting into a fake toss shit . All starts with FUTO crap and some previous shady movements they did . This will die eventually

      • AustralianSimon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

        How is it “fake Foss” when you can just download and run the code without paywalled features and not spending anything.

        • twei@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I could understand the argument if Immich relicensed to the FUTO Temporary License, which technically isn’t open source, but since immich is still AGPL this makes absolutely no sense

  • TheHolm@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Does not really matter what wording they will put in. It is clear that project will go to pay or get nothing way. So just start working on decommissioning it. Free software really need better ways to pay developers, that will allow to avoid crap like that.