v1.109.0
ImportantRead our announcement about supporting Immich by buying a license here
Highlights
Welcome to version v1.109.0 of Immich. This release introduces an additional way for you to supp...
Welcome to version v1.109.0 of Immich. This release introduces an additional way for you to support Immich financially as well as bug fixes for various issues. Some of the highlights in this release include:
Copy this to custom CSS in the adminpanel and the license banner is gone:
.license-status{
display:none !important;
}
It is possible to set the status to licensed too vua the database, but I didn’t try it.
I hope it will only be this banner. Kavita has had a donation button too and 2 updates further it was a floating button. The whole thing about licensing is heavily discussed on Discord.
They would need to do a private rewrite. Once again this is why you should never sign any kind of CLA. There isn’t a CLA here but it there were it would be a simple matter of them changing the license.
They would have to track down everyone who has ever contributed to the project and convince them to sign a CLA. Many/most would refuse, whose code they would have to rewrite from scratch without violating their copyright (meaning no copy-pasting).
It would be messy and extremely painful, and at the end of the process we’d still have Immich as it was before the license change available to fork and maintain ourselves.
They only need the biggest contributors. Small contributions like single line or even a few lines edits etc. are not eligible for copyright. Also minor contributions can be easily rewritten.
… at which point we could still fork the project from before the license change and continue on our merry way.
If you expect ongoing maintenance, are you saying you feel entitled to the devs’ continuing work in perpetuity, and at no cost? Because that’s called slavery and we have laws against it.
If you expect ongoing maintenance, are you saying you feel entitled to the devs’ continuing work in perpetuity, and at no cost? Because that’s called slavery and we have laws against it.
I’m just trying to understand what you’re upset about. Immich is released under one of the most user-protecting licenses out there, without a CLA, and every communication from everyone on the dev team has emphatically committed to keeping it that way. You’re over here saying “yeah but they might change it some day” and sure, maybe, but it would be a gigantic pain in the ass, there’s no indication they plan to do so, and you could say the same thing about literally any other open source project. And even if they did change it, we’d still have the most recent GPL version to fork! What more could you possibly want? All that’s left is a guarantee of ongoing maintenance, which I’m sorry but you are not entitled to that.
Edit: and the best way to ensure ongoing maintenance is to fund the project. Devs gotta eat.
I don’t think it’s possible to make this project proprietary because FUTO does not own the rights to the code that were made by random contributors on git. Part of the promise was that they won’t change their CLA so it should be fine.
FUTO is the same organization that doesn’t believe in Foss. The want one creator to have power over users. I don’t think that model is going to work out.
That’s not quite their position. They believe the OSI decides what counts as Open Source based on what benefits big tech who fund them. Basically, they think it’s wrong to argue that something cannot be considered open source unless Google is allowed to use the free labour of contributers without restriction or payment.
Tbh it’s the English language that decides what counts as Open Source. Free/Open Source software has been established for decades at this point. It’s good that they changed the name to “Source First”.
I think that better wording would be “the organization that doesn’t believe that foss solves every problem”. For project like immich AGPL is completely fine but for the android keyboard it might not be a good idea to allow Google to use it to abuse their customers.
It isn’t open source or free software. There software prevents you from having the same rights as the parent organization. You can’t fork the project if there is a big development shift you don’t like so it is effectively proprietary.
If worse comes to shovel the community could fork it. That would be very hard and seriously detrimental but if they start pulling crap like this it might be time.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !selfhosted@lemmy.world
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:
Be civil: we’re here to support and learn from one another. Insults won’t be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
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.
Don’t duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.
Resources:
selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
From Discord
Copy this to custom CSS in the adminpanel and the license banner is gone:
It is possible to set the status to licensed too vua the database, but I didn’t try it.
I hope it will only be this banner. Kavita has had a donation button too and 2 updates further it was a floating button. The whole thing about licensing is heavily discussed on Discord.
Yep and eventually there will be a paid proprietary version. That’s usually how it goes. I hope I am wrong.
Would be very difficult to switch licenses away from GPL3
They would need to do a private rewrite. Once again this is why you should never sign any kind of CLA. There isn’t a CLA here but it there were it would be a simple matter of them changing the license.
While true it is not impossible to relicense a software project.
They would have to track down everyone who has ever contributed to the project and convince them to sign a CLA. Many/most would refuse, whose code they would have to rewrite from scratch without violating their copyright (meaning no copy-pasting).
It would be messy and extremely painful, and at the end of the process we’d still have Immich as it was before the license change available to fork and maintain ourselves.
They only need the biggest contributors. Small contributions like single line or even a few lines edits etc. are not eligible for copyright. Also minor contributions can be easily rewritten.
Most ppl you will get with a paycheck.
… at which point we could still fork the project from before the license change and continue on our merry way.
If you expect ongoing maintenance, are you saying you feel entitled to the devs’ continuing work in perpetuity, and at no cost? Because that’s called slavery and we have laws against it.
Stop putting words in my mouth.
I’m just trying to understand what you’re upset about. Immich is released under one of the most user-protecting licenses out there, without a CLA, and every communication from everyone on the dev team has emphatically committed to keeping it that way. You’re over here saying “yeah but they might change it some day” and sure, maybe, but it would be a gigantic pain in the ass, there’s no indication they plan to do so, and you could say the same thing about literally any other open source project. And even if they did change it, we’d still have the most recent GPL version to fork! What more could you possibly want? All that’s left is a guarantee of ongoing maintenance, which I’m sorry but you are not entitled to that.
Edit: and the best way to ensure ongoing maintenance is to fund the project. Devs gotta eat.
They promised at least that’s not how they’re going to do this, at least. But in the end, it’s easy to backpaddle on these promises.
Still: you can always fork the project.
I don’t think it’s possible to make this project proprietary because FUTO does not own the rights to the code that were made by random contributors on git. Part of the promise was that they won’t change their CLA so it should be fine.
Who is? That’s the problem with forks. They always divide the community into slices
I don’t think that there’ll be a community for a project that turned proprietary.
Why not? There are some popular examples, like mysql --> mariadb or elasticsearch --> opensearch
I meant for the propietary branch.
Ok, makes sense
I just hope they don’t destroy this beautiful product.
Immich joined FUTO, and FUTO’s model is that their stuff costs money but if you haven’t paid you’re not restricted.
A bit weird but they (FUTO) are trying to experiment with a new model.
FUTO is the same organization that doesn’t believe in Foss. The want one creator to have power over users. I don’t think that model is going to work out.
That’s not quite their position. They believe the OSI decides what counts as Open Source based on what benefits big tech who fund them. Basically, they think it’s wrong to argue that something cannot be considered open source unless Google is allowed to use the free labour of contributers without restriction or payment.
They talk more about it here and here.
Personally I don’t have a side in this fight but nothing I have seen has made me shy away from using their products.
Tbh it’s the English language that decides what counts as Open Source. Free/Open Source software has been established for decades at this point. It’s good that they changed the name to “Source First”.
I think that better wording would be “the organization that doesn’t believe that foss solves every problem”. For project like immich AGPL is completely fine but for the android keyboard it might not be a good idea to allow Google to use it to abuse their customers.
It isn’t open source or free software. There software prevents you from having the same rights as the parent organization. You can’t fork the project if there is a big development shift you don’t like so it is effectively proprietary.
Yes you can, you just cant change the payment links
Sorry I though you were talking about Grayjay.
I am
If worse comes to shovel the community could fork it. That would be very hard and seriously detrimental but if they start pulling crap like this it might be time.