I think its completely on topic personally.

We should keep in mind that self hosting means different things to different people. For some (and probably a huge chunk of the fediverse) its about working towards being free from the oligarchs, controlling your own data, etc.

But for others it may be just sharing some movies with friends or being able to watch high quality when you have two tin cans and a string for an internet connection. It may be trying out different technologies, maybe learning a few things to try and get a few more bucks a year. It may even just be they can't afford or just don't want to pay for the five subscriptions they'd need to have their bike computer sync up with their fitness tools so they can estimate their caloric needs better.

And none of these reasons are wrong, just their own reasons for wanting to selfhost.

So I hope everyone will continue to keep that in mind in the comments.

Thats... Unfortunately another issue to be addressed here.

I also absolutely don't like people commenting "slop" for anything within spitting distance of ai/llm's, regardless of how it was used. For the record, there were months of backlogged reports about comments, despite tons of "rule 3" violations on posts never reported on, which I've now cleaned up.

I do think it does address it somewhat, in that there is no reason to dogpile if there is a valid rule to remove on, or its clearly permitted. It also clarifies on approved posts, and provides a valid reason to remove unhelpful and off topic comments for what is definitely a valid, rule abiding post.

Will of solve everything? No, but I think putting a rule like this in place is certainly the right direction overall.

I think some people are having trouble understanding what a promotion post is, thus the edit.

If you are not from that company, you can post about it, have discussions, talk about features in new versions, whatever. If you are from a company trying to promote your own product, that is when the rule applies.

How does this in any way impact your ability to post about a non-free product?

You can load models for Frigate yourself, and the documentation tells you how to do it, but the recommended Frigate+ models are easier to use.

Ah, that didn't used to be the case. Or it changed quickly? I don't recall tbh, but "easier to use" wouldn't bar self-promo in that case, since you can load the models.

Redis, which relicensed to a non-Free license in 2024, but would have still been usable by most people who are self hosting. Redis is available under AGPL since 2025.

Not really weird, since v8 its AGPL, so its a fully open license. Prior license isn't relevant.

All Hashicorp software, such as Terraform and Vault, which relicensed to a non-Free license in 2023, but is still usable for most people who are self hosting.

Not a free license. No self-promo. OpenTofu? Totally fine (and personally recommended btw)

Docker, which is only free on Linux since it relicensed in 2022. Docker Engine only runs on Linux, but the closed-source Docker Desktop runs Docker Engine in a Linux VM and wraps the API to make it almost seamless on Windows and Mac OS, and for that you may need to pay a subscription.

Docker desktop - no self promo. Docker, promo OK.

I'm not seeing the complexity.

Promo posts are purely promotional by the people who made them - not a discussion post or anything, basically a post thats an ad.

With Plex it would be like the Plex marketing team coming in to post about the new features of Plex version whatever and the $10 discount on the new $750 lifetime pass.

It would not be something like:

• How do I get Plex to see my media correctly
• My family are always seeing a relay message on Plex and its low quality

Etc.

The rule is only about those self promotional, sales style posts.

So I'm going to go ahead and try to update the rule for clarity now.

I feel that when I post about my project, I am contributing.

This is specifically the reason why the exemption would exist - because it is a contribution to the community. You don't have a paywall impacting use, the whole thing is just something being shared to others.

Please dont take this the wrong way - another user had a similar misunderstanding that I'm trying to clarify and understand - what do you think a promo post is? I ask because of your first comment, and this comment here about Plex.

Great question.

To be clear, this is about promo posts, and has nothing to do with discussing either of these projects.

So if HA decided to come in here and promo... Yes, that would be under the exemption, thats not a feature limitation but an add-on service. HA is not limited in any way by the subscription option with nabu casa.

Frigate on the other hand I don't think would fall under the exemption. You can't load models yourself - a feature specifically limited by subscription. If frigate devs came in to promote themselves, they would not fall under the exemption.

Again, either project (and closed source commercial projects) still can be discussed or posted about, this is specifically promo posting.

As someone who is a pretty solidly in the open source territory.....

Reaper is great and I have absolutely purchased a license. I'm not often recording music these days, but I will say that anyone I know who is recording music still either uses reaper or is so apple obsessed they use logic pro and won't glance in the direction of anything that isn't an Apple product.

Mostly live production recordings for them, though a few do studio recordings as well.

If you think this is about what I want, you haven't been reading any of my comments.

This comes out of what the community commented in the meta thread, with a bit of my own wording on top to meet the requests.

Also

I’d like to know that so I can find or start a similar community where ppl who do use closed source tools can post questions.

That isn't promotional material and would have nothing to do with this rule, so I'm not sure what you're driving at here.

This will be up at least a day before the rule is put in place, and I'll keep the post up for the week for discussion in case there are clarifications that become apparent, so feel free to take time in considering it. And if it doesn't work or needs adjustment after, it can always be revisited too.

Your wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision.

I'm taking an amalgam of the comments in the meta thread to rewrite for a singular rule. Of course it has my take in it. Which is why I use the word "proposed" - just like with rule 3 which was the cause of drama a few weeks ago, I put my proposed version out there, it saw some mild revision, now its in place.

but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be.

I firmly disagree. The work is custodial, not dictatorial.

I do, however, think it’s a mistake to lean heavily toward favoring FOSS here because, as I mentioned, there is nothing preventing FOSS applications from making money. Further, it is very difficult to find software that is 100% FOSS through and through.

At which time as it becomes a problem it can be evaluated.

That said, it isn't hard to check the license being used (or licenses if it ties to multiple models), and the FSF has a great definition of f/loss. Can it meet the requirements to be f/loss and someone still make money? Yes.

Does that make a post about it an ad?

No.

And it shouldn't stop any sort of discussion - its the promo thats the issue, exactly.

I'm not sure I understand their complaint either. The first comment was about something not impacted at all by the rule, and the second was about floss being hard to define (its not)? Trying to get clarity here but I think I'm missing something with their concern, I don't see it.

Glad to hear it!

Just to say if you missed the "Hi I got made a mod here after I made constructive criticisms in a meta thread about rule 3" post a couple weeks ago, about the only thing not up for debate here would be being intolerant of the intolerant.

Otherwise - any rule or issue can be put up to a meta thread for discussion, including my being mod, at any time.

A rule still needs to be concise enough though, not a link to a discussion thread, which is why these posts are being made to share the amalgamated rule to make sure the community is on the same page before its put into practice.

Just to mention, f/loss with a paywall is already not exempt per the rule.

I tweaked things a bit to be more about percentage of comments/posts, which I think may be a better approach, in a newly posted sticky so we can memorialize the change. Its not implemented yet, and we can go back to an age-of-account approach, but I think % participation may make more sense.

This has gotten a ton of votes, and I'm in agreement that new accounts that have only posted about their paid app should be considered spam, and I would say a timed ban (maybe a week?) would be a good start.

Now what about open source vs paid? Devs who made something may just think "oh I should share it on selfhosted!" On their freshly made fediverse account. Does open source get the same treatment? I'd lean toward no, but some of these projects have a paid component as well - paid hosting, or a license upgrade, or whatever.

I think its fine that they want to make some money, and I'm personally more positive toward a hosted option than a paywall, but its a finer point to navigate than just "paid vs open".

That said, I do see a problem with comments on some posts as well - a reply with "spam" and no report is not helpful. The comment itself isnt helpful. A downvote and report is.

So I think a clear and concise set of rules would be helpful, and maybe with a separate list for fully open source and no paid component, open with a paid component, and a fully closed (paid or not, because we all know where the profit comes from in this scenario).

I'd personally lean toward something like an account xx days old to be able to self-promote, and tags for each type of post.

Thats only partially accurate btw. I see this comment often lately so I think its worth clarifying.

If its wholly generated, then it is not copy protected, and its in the public domain. If it has human guidance (beyond entering prompts, and actually editing the code), it is. Note that this is also in the US only, and obviously subject to change. I'm not personally sure of the consideration of copyright elsewhere.

So lets get specific on rules, and break it down and turn your post into one:

• Closed source commercial applications may not be posted from an account less than 7 days old or they will be removed.

Now what about mostly open but with a paywall on features (so partially closed)?

I'm happy to have a rule change here, I just think it needs to be a clear rule and community supported. If you'd like I can make it a pinned post to be voted/commented on.

I've only more recently taken over here as a result of the previous mod being overzealous on Rule 3, I commented on a better approach, they rage quit and made me and another person mod. There were quite a few clearly relevant projects that got removed, and obviously yours fit in that territory. You can see the currently stickied post about rule 3 here in the community for reference.

So I agree that clarification needs to happen. Right now I'm applying the rules in the lightest way possible, trying to remove only spam right now because the rules are extremely generic and subjective.

My only 'thing' would be that I don't consider this my community to hand down rules from on high, which is why I have encouraged people to make posts like this one so there can be community consensus.