paradox2011

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.

Certainly not, as a resource they are invaluable. Just a few trends that I personally take in to account when it comes to their leadership. Kind of like recognizing a news outlet has a slight political leaning.

Yeah there was drama between the current team and the original founder of Privacytools.io

Long story short, they disagreed on how to manage the site and had differences regarding ownership of contributed content, so the bulk of the team started up their own site in an effort to separate from the founder. Probably good given the monetization efforts the founder was starting to incorporate in the site (and is currently doing last i checked).

It does seem wrong to me that they archived the privacytools.io reddit though, I can only take that as them wnting to drive traffic to their new site and subreddit. They should have let their work stand on its own merits.

I'm unaware of any specific failings as well, but I think there can be some issue with the very specific set of priorities that shape their recommendations. It was one of their main admins that corresponded for Techlore at the Synology conference in the video mentioned by the OP, promoting closed source software. That's all based on your values though, as closed source software can still be privacy respecting. All in all they are a good resource, but it seems like they, along with Techlore, have shifted focus to convenience and centralization instead of more rigorous compartmentalization and FOSS.

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 😕

I replied to a similar comment above ☝️. They call it a server license, but all the language surrounding it is centered on user counts. They are extremely generous giving the "unlimited trial period" with the high quality of Immich, but the way the licensing is being handled is just kind if confusing. At it's root, it's essentially just a request for people to pay for the service, but they've complicated it with the word choice.

Me too. It's a quality app, the only other open source keyboard that rivals it in my mind is Heliboard.

I'd argue that's just a license for 4+ users as the only differentiation is the dollar amount. In fact one of Alex Tran's comments in the github announcement was that they simply capped the price at $100 to keep it from getting too expensive for instances with many users. It's definitely licensing based on users, not servers.

I would be much more comfortable if their licensing language was centered on licensing a self-hosted server, not user amounts. Paying for individual users (IMO) is best done as a hosted service with a monthly fee. They're probably a ways from being able to implement that though.

EDIT: they've adjusted the language and integration of buying the Immich software. It's much clearer and balanced now. You can find the new info on their github announcements page, or likely in the notes of their next immich release.

ORIGINAL COMMENT
I was really looking forward to them opening a compensation option as I got in after they had taken down donation links, but this is all a bit weird. There is some good discussion happening on the github announcement page. I'll probably hold at version 1.108 for awhile until the dust settles.

I've gone through quite a few FUTO videos since they started sponsoring Immich, and it seems like the issue is that they are essentially an organization of engineers that don't have a strong background in the legalese of licensing (thus the lack of attention to the wording of the original FUTO temporary license). Their intentions and goals are solid from my perspective and the software they promote is fantastic, but it feels very much like an org run by idealistic engineers without much of a PR presence. The best PR they have is Louis Rossman, take that as you will 😄

All that being said, I have paid for a few of their other pieces of software that are single user. The part I'm not overly fond of is that it seems to be a payment for each individual user, and not a payment to be able to run the server itself. I'm sure there is rational behind it, but it just feels like this whole licensing element isn't fully baked yet.