Immich License Changes #7023
Replies: 14 comments 19 replies
-
|
A very smart choice, that i can agree with❤️ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Very good decision. Don't let your work be stolen by random companies. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great to see the license changing for the better. :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Very good choice! Living it |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I really like this change! Out of interest: If one of the named companies decides to stay on the last MIT Version, would this change still apply to them? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I guess unfortunately no, but they will not able to use new features/bugfixes thereafter without complying to AGPL. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
With this change will you be requiring contributors to sign a CLA? Or anything similar that retains rights of re-licensing to yourself? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This change was prompted in part because people expressed concerns that we might pull a bait-and-switch and suddenly start charging for (parts of) Immich. Moving to AGPL removes that possibility, but requiring a CLA would bring it back, defeating the point. As such we will not be requiring a CLA. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Awesome! Yeah, that's what I was double checking. Much respect to the commitment of AGPL without CLA! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Hi, Cloudron co-founder here. We too really like the license change. Anyways we don't maintain cloudron specific changes for immich or any app for that matter. We always upstream our changes if any. Our business model is only around making deployment of the app simpler. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Very sad day. Instead of code being free, you impose politics with it. I for one would not be interested in committing to xGPL licensed code. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The issue is, GPL forces that decision on any future contributor. Let us consider two scenarios:
People will either fork it and do a better job; or paid option will provide better value. Either way, consumers win. Code stays free and open; both for future re-licensing and open source development. Nothing is imposed.
Results are no longer open to every party. Developing a paid product based on it is risky and unviable. In this case, the only real development can happen and can die with the gpl. Code will not be forked due to the illusion of openness. Ultimately, this path closes off part of the possible development. From my perspective, mit->GPL here is a loss-loss for everybody. E: but that's completely besides the point. Immich, which i like decided to make a decision which in my opinion is detrimental. They intend to do it anyway, so any further discussion is moot. Still, thanks for swapping thoughts |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I can see why a "business consultant" would be displeased with AGPL - businesses prefer to stay away from copyleft licenses. But I don't see how that displeasure is relevant to most of us here. You're free to fork and maintain the version before the license change, I think, if you feel so strongly about the issue. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
My profession has nothing to do with this; as I've said, it's about freedom which copyleft is ultimately against - and specifically this project, which change to the licensing in my opinion will be detrimental to it Anything else does not belong to this discussion, so either we stick to this project and this change in particular; or I welcome you to a discussion elsewhere. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I think the issue that @Venthe is having with this change is simply due to different values, which are obviously not shared by the rest of the community welcoming this change. When the values are not aligned, there is not much hope of progress. Also, as @1e100 said, anyone is free to fork the code before the change and do whatever they want. Perhaps a new community would gather around the (supposedly non-political) license? Who knows, if enough people are interested... 🤷 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Precisely. That's why I'm not going to push the issue any further. The time will tell if this was a good decision regardless of the sentiment. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This makes me feel pretty good about my digital future - now I can be certain Immich will remain free as in freedom indefinitely, rather than subverted by commercial interests at some point (and what a ripe target it was for that). This is specifically true because of the no-CLA stance. This means the team cannot unilaterally re-license the code at a later date, effectively ensuring freedom and denying future interference. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Politics or not, here is my hopefully sober take on why folks relicense permissive->copyleft or copyleft->permissive. https://dirkriehle.com/2024/02/12/how-open-source-licenses-increase-or-curtail-reach-of-the-software/ |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
알려줘서 고마워. 업데이트에 감사하고 지원합니다. 행복한 코딩 커뮤니티 우리 모두는 항상 커뮤니티를 더 좋게 만들 수 있는 해결책을 위해 노력해 왔습니다. Thank you for letting me know Thank you for the update and support it. Happy Coding Community We've all always been working on solutions that can make our community better. 💕 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Good choice! There's been uncertainty about uploading AGPL-licensed apps into Apple's app store before, do you plan on dual-licensing the Immich iOS app for that purpose? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You can do what nextcloud does https://github.com/nextcloud/ios/blob/master/COPYING.iOS No dual licensing needed |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
No CLA is required for Immich |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Just out of curiosity: Does one need support from all commiters so far to change the license? I welcome the change, good step 👍 |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
No, not in this particular change since the project has been under the MIT license which allows sub-licensing, so it's fine as long as the rights provided of the old license are still respected (Attribution of copyright and maybe reference/include the MIT license of the original work for reference) and the new license is compatible with those rights (which it is in this case). If you wanted to change from AGPL however, then that license does not allow sub-licensing (although there's technically some compatibility with the GPLv3 but that's slightly different). You'd need permission from all those that have contributed while the project was under that AGPL license (some projects get this at time of contribution, commonly via a "CLA"). Just to confirm, I am not a legal expert nor affiliated with the Immich project. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You can't retroactively change a license so the old code will remain under the original MIT license. Only the copyright holder can change the license so if there is only @alextran1502 they can put the new license on the old code. This does not invalidate the prior license for this old code. For any new code, only the new license applies. For files that mix old and new code, the new license wins for the full file. You could still copy over to other places that part of the file that remained untouched and hence available under the old license. See also reuse.software to ensure licensing is clear on a file level. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Great move. Ensuring the future of the project and its dedicated users is always welcome. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Immich License Changes
Important
Immich is switching from MIT to the AGPLv3 License.
We are changing the license to protect Immich, its community, and the effort the contributors have put in to develop the application over the past two years.
Why AGPLv3?
In simple terms, we want to keep anyone from using the Immich source code without making their changes public or contributing back to the project. That includes ourselves, so you can rest assured that Immich will always stay free and open-source.
What does this mean for Immich? Is it going down the dark path?
No, Immich is always guaranteed to be free and open-source and will never have any paywalled features. All features will be available for all users.
What will happen to services like PikaPods or Cloudron
Services that offer Immich on their platform can continue to do that. If any of them modify Immich's source code, they will need to open their modifications of the source code under the same AGPL license and include a prominent notice to their users stating where this source code can be found.
Immich Team
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions