• Fillicia@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • geography082@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

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

      • AustralianSimon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        4 months ago

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

        • twei@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          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