spacelord

Ctrl + W

Yep, works great. If you need help setting it up, reach out.

Thanks! 🙂

No soup for you, only mutton chops. 😄

Yeah, Seinfeld storylines and quotes are so engraved in my subconscious that for any situation, Seinfeld’s the first thing that comes to mind 😆

Kramer reveals the truth about Mom and Pop 😁

Yeah, you don’t sacrifice any convenience here, in my opinion:

Feker Alice98

I’m… Reborn and in love with mech keyboards. 😃

Doesn’t seem to be present on my keyboard. 😁

Agreed. I wasn’t suggesting to use it, but was just asking if OP was referring to that project.

I know of this project: Dead Man Hand

Hereditas?

I’m in the same boat with Action Launcher. 😅

Cover mode? Which launcher? 🙂

That’s not fair.

Quantum! 🏁

Plausible is at least honest about it being an “open core” business model. They openly document what’s missing and why (funding sustainability).

The premium features are likely not in the AGPL repo at all - they’re genuinely separate proprietary code. They seem to be AGPL compliant because they’re transparent that community edition is a subset, not claiming “everything’s there, just toggled off”.

Sounds great! Looking forward to trying it out with Immich. 😃

Cloud features aren’t just a toggle away for self-hosters because setting CLOUD=true enables unwanted restrictions like Stripe billing endpoints and event limits—it was intended as a binary switch for enabling the entire cloud infrastructure.

Rybbit wasn’t architected so self-hosters could modularly enable advanced features. To solve this, I’ve forked the project and made all enterprise features modular and enabled by default, so people can test them.

Of course, it would be desirable that @Goldflag implements this himself because I’m sure he could do it more elegantly and maintain it properly as part of the official project going forward.

That’s inacurrate. Licensing representation matters. If the cloud service is genuinely presented as AGPL-licensed, Section 13 obligations apply regardless of copyright ownership. However, copyright owners remain free to maintain truly separate proprietary versions under dual licensing.

That’s misleading. While copyright owners aren’t bound by their own license, AGPL Section 13 requires that when they run AGPL software as a network service, they must make the complete source available to users.

The AGPL was specifically designed to close the “SaaS loophole.” Being the copyright owner doesn’t exempt you from AGPL’s network service requirements if you’re distributing under that license.