paradox2011

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdwG6SHeZEA

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.

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 😕