Please consider adding a general contact variable for selfhosting

[michaelschefczyk]

To facilitate seflhosting, please consider adding a variable to allow providing operator contact / website / imprint information.

In some jurisdictions (Europe, particularly Germany), selfhosting is only legal, if an imprint is provided containing website operator contact and other details. This holds even if the service is provided only for internal and/or non-commercial purposes, if it can just be suspected that it might be a professional service.

It sseems that mollysocket does not work if ony marks the MOLLY_WEBSERVER as false. Hence, the page showing the QR code must be publicly visible.

[moritzruth]

I don’t think this is necessary.

IANAL, but I think you are alluding to § 5 DDG, which explicitly concerns itself with commercial services only:

Diensteanbieter haben für geschäftsmäßige, in der Regel gegen Entgelt angebotene digitale Dienste folgende Informationen, die leicht erkennbar und unmittelbar erreichbar sein müssen, ständig verfügbar zu halten: […]

Why do you think that a suspicion of it being a professional service would suffice?

Also: "Wo kein Kläger, da kein Richter."

[michaelschefczyk]

One would wish that the legal world were as you are describing it. There is nothing to protect you against some slimy lawyers challenging you for their own profit.

Gersdorf/Paal in BeckOK Informations- und Medienrecht, 51th edition 2026 write on § 5 DDG under Nr. 10: "The requirements for the concept of commercial activity are very low. The mere fact that digital services are offered sustainably, whether for profit or not, is sufficient. Non-profit websites, as well as offerings from educational institutions and even purely private homepages, are covered by this definition, since any website designed for long-term operation fulfills the criterion of sustainability. With this broad understanding of the term, non-commercial websites are virtually non-existent."

I think Molly would welcome IT professionals and others to host the service. Even at no cost, there is a substantial risk of failing to provide the imprint. It can be challenged, and it will be challenged - please do not rely on this not happening.

P.S.: Why does this post get negative "thumb down" feedback? I personally dislike this law. This does not liberate me from the regulation. Should I not post about the framework which we are locked into?? I am not the lawmaker - just the messenger. Don' t shoot the messenger!

[mpeter50]

This holds even if the service is provided only for internal and/or non-commercial purposes, if it can just be suspected that it might be a professional service.

Does that also apply to only exposing a VPN server to the internet, that only accepts your own connections?
If so, that could make selfhosted VPNs illegal, as any safe VPN does not give out any information (or only very little) about itself).

But then its a question whether the RNAME field in the SOA record of your domain is a contact info they accept.

[michaelschefczyk]

The law is only about websites, not about exposed ports and the like. The imprint information must be reachable with one click from each page. SOA records would not fulfill requirements.