There is as far as I can tell no new actual license just a payment scheme and some shaming functionality. They even offer you the software if you don’t pay. Remember the GPL allows them to require payment to give you the software, they just can’t prohibit someone else giving you the software.
However calling unpaid copies unlicensed is incorrect, they are licensed under the GPL (just like paid ones are).
They should remove references to licensing and display something like “This instance of Immich has been paid/not been paid for.” Call the key PRODUCT key.
Sure some find the “pay or shame” scheme distasteful but it is not against the GPL which allows commercial use.
Why does FUTO have to shoot itself in the foot?
There is as far as I can tell no new actual license just a payment scheme and some shaming functionality. They even offer you the software if you don’t pay. Remember the GPL allows them to require payment to give you the software, they just can’t prohibit someone else giving you the software.
However calling unpaid copies unlicensed is incorrect, they are licensed under the GPL (just like paid ones are).
They should remove references to licensing and display something like “This instance of Immich has been paid/not been paid for.” Call the key PRODUCT key.
Sure some find the “pay or shame” scheme distasteful but it is not against the GPL which allows commercial use.