paradox2011

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.

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.