I think most internet arguments are like that, the opposing parties are trying to argue their case for the neutrals, people who have not really made up their mind on the issue.
After all nobody likes to be ‘corrected’ by random strangers. Additionally it’s clearly an important issue for rgullis, he has written some software for lemmy (think a migration tool), has his own instance (with communities, not just to keep track of downvotes). You would expect him to have though his position out (according to his beliefs) and thus not be easily swayed.
I am just stubborn, perhaps it would be better to ignore being ‘called out’ but… no.
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.