Comment on Futo updates their website, removing logos, clarifying micro grants

• TootSweet@lemmy.world ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  From what I’m seeing, you’re right. If there was a contributor assignment policy (some official policy associated with Immich saying that by submitting a PR, you agree to assign copyright on your code changes go the Immich project), FUTO could change the license on future versions as they wished. But it doesn’t look like there’s any contributor assignment or contributor license agreement on Immich.

  To be pedantic, Immich did change from MIT to AGPLv3 a while ago. FUTO could technically scrap the current version, grab the last MIT version of the code, relicense it under their “source-first” license (or any other license they like, pretty much), and declare “this is now the official development version of Immich from which new releases will come.” That would be drastic even for FUTO, though (I don’t think that’s likely any time soon), and the community could then fork the latest AGPLv3 version with a different name and carry on with development.

  source

  • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works ⁨3⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Once you go copy left, you need everyone’s consent to change the license.

    The MIT license is the creator owns the copyright, and any changes you contribute are licesned under the sam MIT as the project.

    So to go from MIt -> anything only requires the consent of the project onwer.

    Any copy left (like AGPL) license -> anything requires every contributors consent.

    source

    • yistdaj@pawb.social ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      As far as I’m aware, contributor license agreements can include a clause stating that you agree to hand over copyright on submission of code. If every contributor has signed the CLA, there is only only one copyright holder, making relicensing easy.

      However, successfully using this to relicense to something less open is extremely rare.

      source

      • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

        Yes, however those aren’t “copy left” licenses like AGPL whose defining feature is the owner not holding copyright

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • tabular@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      GPLv2 says you must license any derived code as the same license . True, unless the license is “GPLv2 or later”. Then anyone can upgrade it to GPLv3.

      source
  • 3abas@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    FUTO could technically scrap the current version, grab the last MIT version of the code, relicense it under their “source-first” license (or any other license they like, pretty much), and declare “this is now the official development version of Immich from which new releases will come.”

    If they pulled that off, a community spinoff from that same version would become the new immich killer. Not the first time it’s happened, and the current maintainers aren’t the only ones capable of maintaining it.

    source
• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  As a visible minority, I know libertarians are not my friends

  I keep seeing this and don’t understand it. Do people lump all the right wing crazies in with libertarians or something?

  I get that libertarianism is a big tent, but it’s not a tent that covers intolerance. The foundation of libertarianism is simple:

  The non-aggression principle[a] (NAP) is a concept in which “aggression” – defined as initiating or threatening any forceful interference with an individual, their property or their agreements (contracts) – is illegitimate and should be prohibited.

  If someone thinks it’s okay to hurt or disparage someone based on their skin color or country of origin, that’s a violation of the NAP and definitionally they’re not libertarian. A lot of people hide behind the libertarian label because they’ve been thoroughly rejected by the major parties, but that doesn’t make them libertarian.

  Libertarians disagree on a lot of things, like the role of government, whether property rights exist, and what is “aggression,” but they are very consistent in rejecting hate. Libertarians were supporting LGBT folks before it was cool, and the 2024 candidate for the Libertarian Party was a gay man in complete defiance of the candidate chosen by the Mises caucus, the far right caucus that took over the party. Libertarians are about as extreme left as you’ll get on social issues, and about as extreme right as you’ll get on fiscal issues, generally speaking.

  I guess I genuinely don’t understand what people see as libertarian. I consider myself libertarian, but I take my roots from Penn Jillette, and add in stuff like UBI. Here’s a great snippet from him, and my (poor) summary:

  How can we solve problems with more freedom instead of less?

  …

  The government should should only use violence for things I am willing to use violence for. I would use violence to stop a murder or stop a rape. I wouldn’t use violence to build a library.

  I think a social safety net crosses that threshold. I would use violence to feed my family, and I would defend someone else who does so as well, so I think it’s fair for force everyone to pay into a social safety net that ensures everyone has enough to survive using the excess of others.

  My SO is a visible minority as well, and they have no issues being with me. So I guess I’m missing something about the public perception of libertarianism.

  source

  • DoPeopleLookHere@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Because libertarians are the first to remove legal protections in the name of small government. This isnt a blanket rule, more anecdotal than anything. But the ones I’ve managed to find and interact with all want to remove all sorts of legal protections.

    source

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      The party doesn’t seem to represent those that I’ve interacted with

      That’s kinda true for everything, no? Parties just represent whatever is popular at the moment.

      Look at the GOP in the US, in 2016, they were pretty universally on board with hating Trump, and now they’re trying to suck up to him. Likewise with Dems, they used to love unions, and recently they barely give them a nod. The parties of today look very different from even 10 years ago.

      On the other hand, typically it’s the extreme fringes of movement that will tell you specifically what they believe, and the quiet majority in the middle keep to themselves. Sometimes Dems think I’m a Dem too, and sometimes they think I’m a Republican. Likewise for Republicans, it really depemds on the subject. Many people who would otherwise label themselves “libertarian” don’t because they play the lesser of two evils game depending on where they lean.

      libritarians miss the forest for the trees

      If anything, it’s the opposite. If libertarians miss nuance, it’s because they’re focused on big picture principles instead of exceptions and details.

      Any change based on principles should be gradual and its impact carefully measured.

      But you deney the help that social programs provide, and actually benift the economy.

      When did I claim that? I explicitly said I support a social safety net. In fact, I’m left of many Dems on that, since I believe in UBI (or my preference NIT). I think we should repurpose SS for this and maybe expand it a bit.

      I believe in a banced budget and to eliminate any part of government that isn’t carrying its weight. I want to closely examine:

      • Dept of Education - esp. student loans, which I believe contribute to high tuition; increase Pell grants if needed
      • TSA - should be converted to a security auditing org w/ seccarefullydled by airports; maybe add that duty to the Marshals service
      • NSA - should be shuttered and duties handed to the CIA and FBI as appropriate

      Basically, go agency by agency and determine what it’s value is, what it’s cost is in terms of freedom, and what options we have to accomplish similar goals with more freedom. The goal isn’t to gut the government, but to trim anything that isn’t providing sufficient value.

      AFAIK, no libertarian has an ideal size of government except perhaps “zero,” but instead just knows we need to trim what we have to cut waste and trampling of freedoms.

      source