Not the OP, but I believe they’re talking about the upgrade from 128 bit AES to 256 bit AES. It created some compatibility issues between clients for a few days as the ones that weren’t updated yet couldn’t decrypt the newer 256 AES encrypted notes. That was my experience anyways. It’s a great app/server from my personal experience.

I’ve basically agreed with you this whole time, see my initial comment regarding the difference between the previous comtribution model and the new request for purchase:

Yeah, functionally it’s the same.

However we’re drawing different conclusions about the situation. You say it’s misleading and morally wrong to refer to “buying” this software, I say it isn’t and that it’s actually a helpful perceptual change in fostering support from their users.

I don’t really think there’s anything else to say beyond that. If you don’t like how Immich is handling their software, don’t use it.

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.

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.