Edit 3 - further refining.
There are some rather… unique interpretations of what a promo post is, along with an important note that some people lurk. Its important though that they participate somewhere to make sure its not a drive-by ad, but its fair to say that there are users in programming, linux, and other communities whose posts would be welcomed by users here.
Its also important to users here that its not just post and disappear.
So I’m adjusting to:
Promotion posts require your active participation in selfhosting or related communities, or the post will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from this rule as long as you continue to engage in comments.
EDIT 2 AT THE TOP AGAIN:
It seems there is some confusion around the term “promo posts”, so I’m making another adjustment for clarity. If this is muddying the waters instead, please point that out!
Self-promotion posts advertising their product requires community participation, or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted in full without payment, your post is exempt from this rule.
I worry a bit that its getting unwieldy, so feel free to suggest options to clean up the language a bit.
EDIT AT THE TOP:
Promotional posts require community participation or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be used in full without payment, it will be exempt from this rule.
Intended to clarify on “paywall” - it has to be open source and run in full locally, no one-time or subscription-locked payment for features, to qualify. Donations don’t count as that doesn’t limit use, while something like Kavita (which has non-free features behind a subscription, despite the base being open source) would not have the benefit of exemption. The rule intent hasn’t changed here, just the wording on the exemption limitations.
I’ve gotten through (I believe) all the comments in the meta thread. So I want to establish a few things, first being a better definition on spam.
Spam is not “I don’t like this and its a paid product” or “I don’t like this and they used AI/LLMs”.
Spam would generally be considered:
- Mass-posting - Posting the exact same post across a bunch of of different communities, rapidly.
- Repetitive Content (aka karma farming) - repeatedly submitting old popular content. I’ll note that this is completely irrelevant on lemmy, this was more of a reddit issue due to karma.
- Bot Activity / AI Abuse - Using scripts/bots/gen AI to automate posts and comments.
- Unsolicited DMs - Mass private messages or chats to users, completely unsolicited
I’d say anything other than that deserves a followup rule, and this definition should go in the sidebar.
Regarding the promotional posts themselves, I think something like the 10% rule makes sense - no more than 10% of the account should be self-promotional material or comments within the community.
I do think it makes sense to include an exception for 100% free/libre open source projects. Partially open projects with a closed (paid) component should be subject to the 10% rule. So what I propose as the rule would be:
Promotional posts require community participation or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & without any paywalls, it will be exempt from this rule.
Questions, comments, clarifications, and harsh criticisms are welcomed in the comments. As a reminder from my intro post, and because of some comments in the other thread, I will mention:
There are people on both sides of the keyboards, so please be respectful of others.
You must log in or # to comment.
Self-promotion posts advertising their product requires community participation, or they will be removed. No more than 10% of your posts or comments may be self-promotional, or your post will be removed. **F/LOSS Exception**: If your post is about a project that is completely open source & can be self-hosted *in full* without payment, your post is exempt from this rule.
How about
Promotional posts advertising a product requires community participation. If more than 10% of your history is promotional it will be removed. F/LOSS Exception: If a project is completely open source and can be self-hosted in full without payment, it is exempt.
Edit: we’ve come full circle. Let’s just do ‘don’t be a shill’ and be done with it…
I’m a lurker, I potentially comment but usually there is not much to add when the pros have posted, so if I’d try to promote my secure, takedownsafe P2P sharing protocol (if people started using it, everyone could have a web-space, backups, a “drop-box”, an online presence, and more), it’d be kicked?
I’m just trying to understand where I am, the overall rule is completely understandable.
No, you’re pretty active in general, so it would be left up.
But I see what you’re saying, it would be better to amend the community part. The 10% should really be said as your activity and not specific to the community.
I’m going to make an edit, thanks
I worry a bit that its getting unwieldy, so feel free to suggest options to clean up the language a bit.
I would just keep it simple: “Self promotion for your product is allowed, but this is not an advertising platform. Be sensible and participate to community. Abuse will result in post removal.”
I don’t think it really helps to place any arbitary limit as it might just result on spamming low-effort comments so that your “quota” stays under the 10% rule and also posting about your fantastic FOSS project daily could be equally annoying. That 10% rule could be useful when deciding if something should be removed and obviously free projects should have more relaxed “limits”, but in general what counts as abuse can be decided by community feedback.
That would be effectively the same as no rule at all, so I’m going to have to say that is not an option given the recent meta thread.
The issue is not repeat posts from specific posters, or even repeats - they just aren’t happening. What is happening, and caused the thread, were posts that were basically looking for beta/qa testers for their closed source app.
So “Please don’t be spammy” is not enough. What the majority asked for was strong limits or an outright ban.
I disagree that it would be the same than no rule at all, in my opinion that gives a pretty clear position on what’s allowed and what’s not without setting any strict limits so there’s some room for interpretation for community/mods to act.
Maybe rephrasing a bit helps: “This community is not an advertising platform. Self promotion is allowed only from active members of this community. Excessive promotion will result on post removals and/or ban from the community.”
What I’m afraid is that if there’s a strict rule then someone will argue that “only 9,87% of my posts are promotion, I don’t deserve a ban” even the rest of their content has little to no value for the conversation. And, since it’ll be a rule for the community, I personally think it should apply as it’s written, so it should have some kind of option to weed out smartasses trying to game the system in place.
But I’m not likely to promote anything around here, so for me it doesn’t really matter, just trowing out my thoughts about the matter.
I disagree that it would be the same than no rule at all
None of the posts that people have been complaining about were repeat posts.
It absolutely would be no different than no rule at all.
Self promotion is allowed only from active members of this community.
Now define active - how I did it was set a participation goal. How are you defining it here to make it a fair rule to be applied?
What I’m afraid is that if there’s a strict rule then someone will argue that “only 9,87% of my posts are promotion, I don’t deserve a ban”
If someone is commenting and posting regularly enough to get a percentage like that, no one would even need to do the math to see participation for it to be an approvable post. And there is no ban here, just post removal.
Its about the people (or maybe bots) posting about a product in 9 posts, and 9 out of 10 comments, not the person who has a promo post in 11 out of 100 posts.
so it should have some kind of option to weed out smartasses trying to game the system in place.
Spammy comments get yoinked or (if made elsewhere) noted as not actually participating with the self promo post removal.
Would spamming low effort comments to fill a quota then fall under the spam bit, not necessarily self promotion bit? It would be quite obvious and from what was written in the post, moderators have more hand-wavy freedom to decide what is spam.
I have no dog in this fight either since all of my projects are open hardware so nobody cares anyway because it would cost money to build it and test it out 😂
Would spamming low effort comments to fill a quota then fall under the spam bit, not necessarily self promotion bit?
Yup! Especially if they get reported for suddenly blasting out low effort comments which would put them on “mod radar” as it were.
I have no dog in this fight either since all of my projects are open hardware so nobody cares anyway because it would cost money to build it and test it out 😂
I dunno, plenty of us do stupid things with our money to try out something we want…
Would spamming low effort comments to fill a quota then fall under the spam bit, not necessarily self promotion bit?
Possibly, but there’s equally gray area that what counts as low effort spamming and what actually contributes to the conversation. For example I’ve replied to comments “I’m using X to do Y” with “I’m using X too and I’m happy with it” to give an opinion to possible solutions. That kind of comments are easy enough to throw out and, if the “10% rule” is interpreted strictly, it isn’t really obvious if they should be considered as “improving your ratio” or as a part of actual conversation.
FOSS / FLOSS isn’t nec. free (gratis) though. We might end up yak shaving with these definitions. Better to have a singular rule for all?
I’m thinking of it from both mods side and community side. Obnoxious advertising - FOSS or otherwise - is obnoxious.
10% rule is a good one. 30 day rule is another good one. Use both?
IMHO.
FOSS / FLOSS isn’t nec. free (gratis) though. We might end up yak shaving with these definitions.
And if it is paywalled in any way it wouldn’t meet the criteria for exemption in the first place, so that would be a non-issue.
As far as the 30 day rule goes, thats basically an outright ban on promo posts given the current status of the fediverse.
On the 30 day rule: I come back to the “what is this space” question.
Is it a men’s shed? Is it free to air TV? Is it Avon knocking on my door?
What frame of reference are we operating from here?
If it’s a communal space where journeymen share tips and tricks, then “pay your fees” (with 30 days of good faith participation first) seems to guard (historically) against aggressive advertising.
ICBW and YMMV.
All that does (IMO) is make you wait, not participate.
The point of the rule is just a way to weed out commercial marketing posts when there is no involvement / visibility on the fedi, so it isnt just being used as an avenue to advertise.
So I don’t see what the 30 day rule is adding for everyone that isn’t covered by the 10% rule, so not sure others will either. What’s it adding for the community?
Waiting is the point. People who are here to post and run will neither have the patience, nor the good will, to wait 30 full days before accumulating the social capital to blab about their project.
I’m not proposing “bot signs up, waits 30 days, then posts”. That’s a known escape velocity. 30 days by itself isn’t the solution because it can be gamed (esp without karma).
OTOH, everything proposed so far can also be gamed.
I’m merely suggesting a human mod reviewable method, that is also transparent and simple to follow for users.
If you can’t automate this, you either need hard rules (which will stifle convos - which was part of the issue with rule 3) OR you need a defensible rubric.
You can choose which, but there’s a constraints based reason why fora keep circling this sort of solution.
Waiting is the point. People who are here to post and run will neither have the patience, nor the good will, to wait 30 full days before accumulating the social capital to blab about their project.
What social capital is being built by waiting over an active participation requirement?
OTOH, everything proposed so far can also be gamed.
How?
Low effort comments would just be considered spam in the first place, so how can it be gamed?
I’m merely suggesting a human mod reviewable method, that is also transparent and simple to follow for users.
Its all human (me) reviewed, through a posted process that is transparent and simple to follow. Whats the difference?
If you can’t automate this, you either need hard rules (which will stifle convos - which was part of the issue with rule 3) OR you need a defensible rubric.
The issue with rule 3 was a completely subjective interpretation of what was selfhosting as determined by that mod, which then made the community believe there were hit and run posts happening, and the posters believe this to be a hostile community (it was).
Nothing is being automated, I review every report. The tools aren’t there imo to automate much of anything successfully.
I’m not saying no here, to be clear, I’m asking what this actually adds because I’m not seeing it.
What social capital is being built by waiting over an active participation requirement?
Display of patience and good will, as I said.
If you can’t wait 30 days AND engage in actual discussion BEFORE posting your amazing project, that’s a clear breach of the unspoken social contract.
Again - I’m saying these things are cumulative.
30 days + posts + 10%.
Any one or the other can be gamed.
Sign up for 30 days, do nothing, post ad = you technically waited 30 days.
Posts = “sounds great!”, “I love Syncthing!”, “Have you tried Jellyfin?” (or better LLM crafted variants) and THEN hit with ad = you technically engaged with the community.
10% = 9 fillers, 1 ad = you technically met the 10% rule.
How
See above
Low effort comments would just be considered spam in the first place, so how can it be gamed?
“Low effort” is doing some work there. How are you going to define it?
Its all human (me) reviewed, through a posted process that is transparent and simple to follow. Whats the difference?
That’s exactly my point. A+B+C = less decision pain for you, less gray area for posters. So long as both sides are clear on what A+B+C constitute.
The issue with rule 3 was a completely subjective interpretation of what was selfhosting as determined by that mod, which then made the community believe there were hit and run posts happening, and the posters believe this to be a hostile community (it was).
Correct. And it stifled discussion. We’re not disagreeing here.
Nothing is being automated, I review every report. The tools aren’t there imo to automate much of anything successfully.
Still not disagreeing.
I’m not saying no here, to be clear, I’m asking what this actually adds because I’m not seeing it.
Multiplicity of signals, transparency and clear expectations.
Posts = “sounds great!”, “I love Syncthing!”, “Have you tried Jellyfin?” (or better LLM crafted variants) and THEN hit with ad = you technically engaged with the community.
No, you spammed low effort comments that are easily seen.
“Low effort” is doing some work there. How are you going to define it?
The way its pretty universally defined…
One-word/overly simplistic replies, unrelated content, vague comments/complaints, etc. Its not something you can automate, but when an account is full of just that its quite obvious. “Low effort” for comments and posts have been in common usage for 15-20 years now. Its not exactly new or poorly misunderstood.
Multiplicity of signals, transparency and clear expectations.
I can only see it having value for paid products though, and even there its questionable of value to me. Waiting a day or a week or a month, what difference would that make if they are actively and positively engaging with the community?
I saw the other thread and decided not to comment because there the conversation was looking pretty contentious, and I didn’t want to put a target on my back, but as somebody who almost exclusively posts about my project on Lemmy, I thought that this might be a good opportunity to explain myself.
Due to my project being FOSS, I’m thankful that this 10% rule doesn’t apply to me right now because I really don’t think I could provide anything useful by spouting my opinions. I do look at questions to see if there’s anything I can answer but the community is already great at that and most have more experience and knowledge of hosting infrastructure etc. I don’t feel that I have a great deal of insight into what makes for a good self hosting setup, but I have a passion for writing open source software that can be self hosted, and this is the way that I feel I can contribute something meaningful.
I feel that when I post about my project, I am contributing. I’m telling you that it exists, it’s free and you’re welcome to try or leave it. I do try to keep it relevant so as not to hit anyone over the head with it, and I’ve put the detailed posts into their own community. Nobody is going to find out that some of these self hosted applications exist if they aren’t told about them.
deleted by creator
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.
Many, many years ago, I worked for a company that would do leaflet drops (junk mail). People would complain. I pointed out that they were essentially spamming people with unsolicited junk. Their retort was “We don’t see it as junk; we’re informing potential customers”.
Dunno. Pretty sure it was just wasting a lot of paper and generating some ill will. ICBW
I guess it depends on what this space is. Is it a (virtual) wood worker’s get together, where journeymen pool knowledge and help each other out? Or is it something else? Is there a needle to thread here?
Whatever it is, if we never get another “I made X…here’s the problem this solves…curious if anyone else…” AI ghost written “pick me, pick me”, I will be very greatful.
I think 10% self-promotion is a very fair rule. It enforces the idea that if you are going to take from the community that you also give something back.
As someone who is partially self-hosted, I think that will help keep ads from muddying the waters when I’m searching posts for setup suggestions.
Nice to see the changes, but may I ask if tagging could be beneficial?
Surely it would help to sort out self promotion, help requests and informational posts.
Also, since we’re all in the lemmy-bubble, a lot of people may despise vibe-coded projects, at least it looks/feels like it, so it may be worth tagging project with AI code?
I’m maybe narrow-minded, but please enlighten me^^
Re: AI tags. I disagree, for reasons I outlined here
https://lemmy.ml/post/48724623/26190950
TL;DR: in 2026, assume ALL projects have AI assist. Then do your due diligence.
Really doesn’t address the issue at all.
Because its not just user due diligence, but what the comment threads become.
This is a discussion for another round though, not for this rule.
We might be talking past each other here or actually agreeing.
But yes, this belongs in a separate [META] thread. It’s a discussion that needs to be had IMHO.
You are welcome to make one, but to note I am avoiding inundating the community with discussions, so I won’t be making one (or a rule post followup like this) until next week. Trying to avoid having too many at once.
So doing nothing is the way? There are useful project created with AI but also a lot of harmful ones.
Even I know, that the bigger part of selfhosters are copy and pasting guides and aren’t developer themselve, so why should we not try and at least warn these people?
OK but isn’t that also true of non AI projects? Famously, XZ utils?
I would hate to see this happen
- [AI TAG] - slop, derision, FOAD
- [NOT AI] - all good!
Tagging something ai or not ai is no guarantee of non-malefescence. Due diligence is required in both circumstances.
It’s a bit like those Nigerian prince scam emails of yore. If you can’t grok why it’s bad, no amount of “this email is probably spam” being appended to the header will save you.
I would hate to see this happen
- [AI TAG] - slop, derision, FOAD
- [NOT AI] - all good!
Which is what is happening now without the tag as soon as someone sees “AI”, regardless of what its doing, how it was used, or if its even related to the development.
Yes, that’s what I’m saying. So an AI tag at best does nothing and at worst buries potential useful projects.
I think you’re missing the part where this happens now.
Having an AI tag also means that posting comments to complain about using AI is off-topic and would be removed.
Maybe. So let me steelman what I think you’re saying.
It seems like you’re making a case for some kind of loop - AI tag means you can’t complain about AI tagged posts, and if you do, your post gets removed.
Have I represented your position fairly?
My counter point is - if the hostility already exists without a tag, that confirms the tag isn’t a cultural fix.
If complaints about AI use become off-topic and get removed, you haven’t improved the community’s relationship with AI content, you’ve just suppressed the feedback loop.
Is that really the right direction, given the reality of AI assistance in coding?
The hostility doesn’t go away. It goes underground, or people leave anyway.
Moderating away dissent isn’t community health, it’s just quieter dissent.
The community reacting negatively to AI content is the signal. A tag that makes that signal removable isn’t a solution, it’s a lid on a pot.
I’m not calling for some grand destigmatization of slop, I’m calling for nuance and education.
Which ultimately is beyond the scope of a mod…but you’re the one wearing the cape. What sort of house do you want to run?
Let’s at least not do something that propagates the knee jerk “fuckAI and fuck you” Lemmy is famous for.
It’s a hard problem, to be sure. Maybe your AI tag is a fair enough step for now.
I’m totally on your side about awareness and “you have to check it yourself”.
Nobody is telling AI aided projects are bad. Nobody is saying vibe-coded projects are bad.
The problem with vibe-coded projects is, that on average, the code isn’t checked by the owner itself. Surely there a some people using AI as aid and check it afterwards but this is sadly only a small proportion.
In my honest opinion, we should not create rules around exceptions.
We’re currently in a timeline, where it’s hard to tell what is right and what is wrong about AI usage but we have to start somewhere…
I actually do want tagging of some sort, I think its a sensible approach overall. I think its a quick way to identify that your project used AI and people can quickly filter, per your example.
That said, I think that should be a separate item, and I don’t want to inundate with stickies either. That was going to be my next “oh look a mod is annoying us with his opinion again” post, but then we ended up seeing a ton of promo content this week. I’m trying to stick to a mod post every week or two so everyone has a chance to see and respond to things.
That said, if you want to get that discussion ball rolling, feel free to make a meta post about it of course!
Thanks for your work, time and effort. I also think, it would be better to separate it and first end the discussion about promotions and co, so it could settle before kicking of another round^^
I find this too prohibitive. Even with the exception this would make me think twice about a promo post and maybe even refrain me from posting at all. For non-except services it is even worse. It may lead to spam posts or users trying to categorize contributions into useful and not useful posts.
Self hosting does not end for everyone with free services. Some of us are happy to pay for services provided by others and I would really like to read about these here as well. I know this is not the intention of the rule, but it will be its result.
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?
Thank you for thoughtful engagement!
I think that becomes even more problematic. Why is it better that I shill for a company I’m getting kickbacks from (some VPN providers excel at this game) rather than one I’m responsible for? Besides, this just lead to submarining (“viral marketing” is an entire industry!) and people pretending to “have just stumbled across this project, what do you guys think?” or being “just a happy customer”… And to some extent t becomes a game of social status, where well-connected people can just ask their friends to post on their behalf.
Judge the message and topic, not the messenger (as long as they are human acting in good faith and not “written with help by AI”, obv).
Besides of those issues, my personal preference would be to keep the focus on self-hosting. So talk of hardware or shipped software might be on-topic but not service providers. There are plenty of places to discuss cloud-hosting, VPNs, which PaaS is best, or whatnot.
And I would actually be much more interested in seeing a post from a founder talking about things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters, vs yet another post of “which provider is best right now and what do you use?” or “Company X currently has a sale/launched product Y”.
While it might filter out some good stuff, I would be all for a ban of any promotion of commercial or proprietary products and services alltogether but allow for self-hostable and in particular FLOSS stuff (where I guess some carve-out or clever formulation could be made to allow for commercial but self-hostable software - either stance on that one seems fine to me).
Why is it better that I shill for a company I’m getting kickbacks from (some VPN providers excel at this game) rather than one I’m responsible for?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand the issue here.
They would be held to the same rule, and both examples you give are the same. If you work for a company or own the company you are still making a self- promotional post for a company, and the rule applies.
Judge the message and topic, not the messenger (as long as they are human acting in good faith and not “written with help by AI”, obv).
Same statement here - if the message is a self-promo post, that is the type of post the rule applies to. This is quite literally what’s being described.
And I would actually be much more interested in seeing a post from a founder talking about things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters, vs yet another post of “which provider is best right now and what do you use?” or “Company X currently has a sale/launched product Y”.
You seem to be vastly in the minority.
I’ll point out that this:
things their company is doing relevant to self-hosters
Does not happen in the first place. They make a post about their software, and generally get downvoted hard, the comments become very harsh, and within a fee days we had a meta thread about it.
While it might filter out some good stuff, I would be all for a ban of any promotion of commercial or proprietary products and services alltogether but allow for self-hostable and in particular FLOSS stuff (where I guess some carve-out or clever formulation could be made to allow for commercial but self-hostable software - either stance on that one seems fine to me).
So a more restrictive rule?
This is practically a jump to the complete opposite of what you just said.
I’m sorry, I’m trying to understand where the disconnect is here, and I’m really struggling to see it.
If you work for a company or own the company you are still making a self- promotional post for a company, and the rule applies.
So if the exact same post is posted by a friend instead it’s suddenly accepted? Why is self-promo meaningfully less desired than third-party-promo if they have similar results?
You seem to be vastly in the minority.
Might be! That one’s framed as just personal preference and not policy suggestion because I don’t think “allow all things I like and ban everything I don’t” makes for good governance ;)
So a more restrictive rule?
More restrictive in one sense (what content and what’s ok to “promote” for) but more allowing in another (you can talk about something even if you are involved or associated).
So if the exact same post is posted by a friend instead it’s suddenly accepted?
If that friend is actively participating in the fediverse and not coming in just to post constantly about a product… Then yes, which the employee/owner/whatever could also just do.
Seems like pretty far into edge case territory though.
Why is self-promo meaningfully less desired than third-party-promo if they have similar results?
Because that post ties to that person on the fediverse, not someone just coming in to blast marketing materials then disappear. Its less about the promo part and more about a way to manage / prevent a constant influx of spammy self promotion hit and runs.
Might be! That one’s framed as just personal preference and not policy suggestion because I don’t think “allow all things I like and ban everything I don’t” makes for good governance ;)
If its what the community is interested in, its exactly the governance model that fits IMO.
And just like this rule, if the community preference changes, then so would the rule.
More restrictive in one sense (what content and what’s ok to “promote” for) but more allowing in another (you can talk about something even if you are involved or associated).
Except that would already be allowed under the current rule, the only change is that non-free wouldn’t be eligible for posting at all.
So everyone just adds a “I’m not working for x” to their posts?
That would be wildly unnecessary for non-promo posts, and pretty weird for promo posts to be by someone who doesn’t work there.
No
I have opinions, but none of them well enough formed to have suggestions on the new rule.
Try it for a while and see if it works! We know this community ain’t shy about sharing when something isn’t working for them!
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.
Are Home Assistant and Frigate exempted? Home Assistant is free and open source and you can self host it, but there is a built-in feature where you can pay a subscription to use Nabu Casa’s ingress server and cloud GPUs, and many of the integrations are only useful if you have paid money for some piece of hardware or have a subscription to a cloud service. Frigate is free and open source, but it has built-in support for specially packaged computer vision models that are offered for a fee that supports the project. I wouldn’t consider either application crippleware, but you can pay money to people who are affiliated with the project for a direct benefit that is related to the software.
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.
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. For example, downloading and configuring YOLO-NAS becomes just copying and pasting a
plus://URL when you’re signed in to Frigate+.As another example, I would consider GitLab not to be free because GitLab is a for-profit company, the open source version of GitLab intentionally lacks features that would be particularly useful to business users, and you can pay GitLab to get those features in a special GitLab distribution distributed under difference licensing terms. If GitLab had a plugin model, and unaffiliated developers created paid plugins for those features, then I think GitLab itself could be considered free. But if paid plugins were developed by the same developers, would that make it not free again?
More strange examples:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
I guess to me it seems like there’s this gray area where you start having to think about intention and whether the software is really intended to be usable for the purposes that people in this community will want to use it for without having to pay the person doing the promoting.
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.
Appreciate the clarification and expansion!
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
Fewer Letters More Letters Git Popular version control system, primarily for code NAS Network-Attached Storage Plex Brand of media server package VPN Virtual Private Network
4 acronyms in this thread; the most compressed thread commented on today has 7 acronyms.
[Thread #24 for this comm, first seen 23rd Jun 2026, 05:20] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
I do think it makes sense to include an exception for 100% free/libre open source projects.
Here we go again.
Both libre projects and free projects can make money via donation, patreon, or other business models. Allowing them a “vibe check” exception and not closed source or anything in between is propagating this notion that money and open source are mutually exclusive.
I appreciate the effort to establish some rules, but this is further entrenching the Lemmy self-hosting community in a mode where it’s a FOSS-only space, which is both uninclusive and inaccurate.
If what you want is a FOSS-only space for self-hosting, 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.
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.
Thank for the clarification.
If you think this is about what I want, you haven’t been reading any of my comments.
I have read them, all of them. Your wording “I think it makes sense to…” suggests you’re making a decision. It seems based on community input, but is nonetheless still your decision. As it should be.
I don’t really have an opinion on the 10% rule, I don’t think anyone can help but make that an arbitrary number.
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.
Ultimately, the line of what is FOSS and what isn’t is what will become a problem.
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.
At which time as it becomes a problem it can be evaluated.
This is functionally what I’m concerned about, and your comment above addresses it. Thanks.
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.
I think that’s the important distinction to make. Maybe get rid of the f/loss exception and explicitly call out the paid aspect. If you’re here to promote software that’s pay walled you get the 10% rule.
ETA: I’m fine with the new rules. Just trying to find common ground.
Just to mention, f/loss with a paywall is already not exempt per the rule.
Yeah, I understand that. I was suggesting saying the same thing without the exception wording. In the end, it doesn’t stop us from talking about paid software. I use Plex, etc, etc, it’s the promotion that’s the problem… That being said, maybe I’ve misunderstood non_burglar’s complaint. Unless they are a closed source dev looking to promote.
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.
Unless they are a closed source dev looking to promote.
I’m not, I swear!
Jokes aside, your example of Plex is a good one to illustrate that we’re not all at the same ratio of FOSS use, some of us have more or less of each.
