Nephele now supports S3 and file encryption (lemmy.world)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/12284817

There's a new version of Nephele WebDAV server (also on Docker Hub) that supports using an S3 compatible server as storage and encrypting filenames and file contents.

This essentially means you can build your own cloud storage server leveraging something like Backblaze B2 for $6/TB/month, and that data is kept private through encryption. That's cheaper than Google Drive, and no one can snoop on your files.

top 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

(In case the text doesn’t show, here it is.)

There's a new version of Nephele WebDAV server (also on Docker Hub) that supports using an S3 compatible server as storage and encrypting filenames and file contents.

This essentially means you can build your own cloud storage server leveraging something like Backblaze B2 for $6/TB/month, and that data is kept private through encryption. That's cheaper than Google Drive, and no one can snoop on your files.

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

Looks like it might rain

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

This is relevant to my interests, thanks. Looks like it's pretty early stages though?

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

It’s stable enough to use in production, but the internal APIs might change, so I wouldn’t recommend writing your own adapters/plugins for it.

It’s still labeled as “alpha” because not all of the features are don’t yet. Once CardDAV support is added, it will get bumped to beta.

[-] [email protected] -4 points 4 months ago

Looks cool :) but AL2? no thank you !

[-] [email protected] 3 points 4 months ago

I’m not familiar with the term AL2. What is that?

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Apache license 2.0

[-] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

Ah. I don’t know why anyone would be put off by that.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 4 months ago

Me neither, but I'd love to hear those arguments.

[-] [email protected] 2 points 4 months ago

The MIT and Apache licenses are permissive licenses that allow developers to use the licensed code in proprietary projects without having to disclose the source code.

I understand that some projects needs these kind of license to protect their code, I get it. But this will most of the time shift the project to a closed proprietary/paid service over time... leaving the open source community with a strange feeling of being abused.

It's not always the case, but it happened in the past, leaving people to fork the project and strating over.

Licensees may redistribute Derivative Work under different terms.
Licensees do not have to distribute the source code alongside with their Derivative Work.

https://itsfoss.com/open-source-licenses-explained/

this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024

49 points (90.2% liked)

Selfhosted

37923 readers

463 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
No spam posting.
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
No trolling.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]