Copy/paste for the lazy:
–––––
Hello everybody,
Alex from Immich here. What a controversy that we caused with the choice of wording, right? My personal apology to you all.
On behalf of the team, we would like everyone to know that we hear your concerns and we appreciate the love and care that you all have expressed for the project. At the end of the day, what we want most is to make sure you are all happy using the app.
With that said, we are working on a change to the word license: we will not call it licensed or unlicensed anymore. What will it be called?
We are still thinking of different options to make the wording less confusing. The new wording will hopefully showcase our intentions properly going forward.
We’re also working on updating the FAQ with more information to clarify those intentions. We just want to provide good software that people will want to pay for whilst not limiting your usage in any way if you can’t.
So expect these changes over the next week. We’re pushing this out now to let you know our appreciation for the feedback you’ve given us.
The amount of purchases in the first 24 hours has been overwhelming. Thanks everyone for the great support!
Have a great weekend!
Immich team.
I get that they’re trying to figure out how to monetize it while staying kosher FOSS, and their first wording suggests they’d like to offer per-seat licensing.
What I don’t get is what would compel me to get a license. I still can’t rely on it for anything serious. I’m basically using it as an UI for the face recognition models and that’s shoddy too. They’ve made it impossible to lean on it for anything else.
I don’t want to sound like a hater because they’re obviously working hard on it but, God, you can tell they’re not professional developers and it’s so frustrating. Focus on doing something well, and stop breaking compatibility every other week.
the project is still in alpha, its normal they have breaking changes
Alright then. We’ll talk about money when it’s out of alpha and stops breaking.
Being in alpha and having breaking changes is fine, the question is how many. My impression is that Immich seems to introduce breaking changes far more frequently than what people might be used to from other projects.
And that does go back to professionalism: The better you plan ahead, the fewer breaking changes you have to impose on your users.
What I don’t get is what would compel me to get a license.
Ideally nothing. Maybe a sticker or a theme, but nothing important to the function of the tool. If the personal gratification that comes with offering financial support to a FOSS project (along with the resulting product itself) isn’t enough, then this “license” (or whatever they end up calling it) isn’t for you…ideally.
Should I not be able to use the software if I’m donating?
I see these comments going “oh it’s still alpha, we need to encourage them”. Well it should have exited alpha a long time ago, and secondly I’m not going to pay for the mere possibility of it being useful at some undetermined point in the future. Show my something useful now.
If anything, Immich has demonstrated it has no intention of ever becoming a useful project. A perpetual alpha that breaks super often and plans to remain in that state on purpose indefinitely should not be asking for any support.
Even in FOSS you have to show some modicum of practical sense. FOSS was founded on “scratch an itch” not on “break forever”.
The impetus to pay once is supporting great Foss software. I personally think a donation model works for me but I don’t research human behaviour or marketing either.
Just don’t monetarize then. Foss and community driven is just that like many other projects. Clearly these guys are trying to sell the shit
Are you not aware of the countless issues with absolutely unsustainable open source projects out there in the wild?
We need a cultural change and a way to normalize supporting and paying (whoever can afford to) for good open source projects.
I think they should consider the word “wages” instead.
Let’s be honest, this is compensation for skilled labour.
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.
Yeah this getting into a fake toss shit . All starts with FUTO crap and some previous shady movements they did . This will die eventually
How is it “fake Foss” when you can just download and run the code without paywalled features and not spending anything.
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
I would need the iOS app to properly back up photos before I paid for it lol.
I don’t think you pay for the iOS app, only the server portion can be licensed AFAIK
You’re correct but what I mean is I’m not paying for it until it’s a stable product with a complete basic feature set. As in, I need the back up software to back up reliably, it doesn’t have to be totally complete.
Yeah it logs my dad (who has an iphone) out sometimes
Remember when sco used suse’s “seat license” wording and was totally hated - like “pitch forks and torches” hated - for it?
I’m only glad you weren’t suing someone for massive contract breach, for a value so large that a million dollar smear campaign was a drop on the bucket.
Sorry you ran into a mix-up like this.
I’m not sure what the right model is to get money flowing in. It seems like they took the easy route. 100 dollars for a server licence is not really that small amount considering that most server users are families? I would have preferred massive fund raising campaigns … I’m a bit lazy and need lots of nagging to get my credit card out … But its right these guys get some income for their work. As long as code remains AGPL … I bet soon there will be a fork like happened with Emby. I ended up purchasing the server licence a a few month later moved to the forked version …🙂
What happened with Emby? I’ve used their service for a long time and have been very happy with their lifetime premium.
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.
What is the context of this? License vs unlicensed? What’s going on?
https://github.com/immich-app/immich/discussions/11186
Tldr is that theyre going for a winrar model where you have an infinite free trial, but the app is technically paid
Except it doesn’t annoy you with popups trying to get you to buy Immich every time you open the app
Exactly
Better but not best as they could just ask for funding and do a biyearly funding campaign
Except this makes them a LOT more money than what you’re suggesting, and also theyre trying to normalise the winrar model in oss
I’m talking about optional donations via something like Librepay. For instance, Thunderbird prompts you to donate on first launch. The raised about a million dollars doing that. It was non invasive and easily dismissible
They stopped accepting donations, like 2 months ago, but they accepted donations before, you know how much money they made off donations? Less than they made off the liscence in the first day it was released
That may be true but the license thing was dishonest because no one was really unlicensed in any way. That is like saying I could rake in a lot more money committing fraud than conducting legitimate business.
Foss and community driven is just that, not money making . This is not foss anymore
I mean this comment well. You seem to be clueless about the problems open source projects are facing. Free work and hopefully the maintainer doesn’t burn out before he can hand the torch to another person.
