> Immich is AGPL-licensed and doesn't have a CLA, which makes it functionally impossible for us to do any kind of rugpull.

More difficult, perhaps, but certainly not impossible. And there are many other ways the software can be functionally crippled without involving a license change.

> We're already "aqcuired" by FUTO since a solid year ago[0] and it's only been up since then.

Like I said, FUTO seems like a fair steward of OSS so far, but I have no reason to trust them long-term. It is funded by a single investor, which doesn't inspire confidence. That relationship may end at any point.

To be fair, I am being overly cautious of what seems like an excellent project by any measure, especially compared to the alternatives. In my defense, I've been conditioned over the years to be wary of software that looks too good to be true, because it inevitably disappoints me, and to prefer simpler and even jankier software that doesn't promise the world, because it rarely does.

Commercializing free software is a difficult and unsolved problem. I'm not against mandatory licenses to unlock features that only a few large/"enterprise" users would generally use. Or to have some sort of a tiered licensing system for more advanced features. This would go against your current philosophy of not locking any features behind a paywall, which is noble, but it also has the drawback of making payments entirely optional. It is essentially donationware, which is not a stable source of income.

Also, subscriptions, as much as users don't like them, are really a requirement for this type of software. It pays for continual maintenance which wouldn't be covered by a single lifetime purchase. There are many ways this could be implemented that makes it fair for both the user and the developer.

In any case, thanks for your work, and good luck with the project. And thanks for the link with alternatives.