• FilliciaEnglish
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    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.

    • geography082English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      3 months ago
      link
      fedilink

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

      • AustralianSimonEnglish
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        0
        ·
        3 months ago
        link
        fedilink

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

        • tweiEnglish
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          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