head to head · open source
tubearchivist vs foss_photo_libraries
tubearchivist has 8,561 GitHub stars, 433 forks, 25 open issues and last shipped 9 days ago. foss_photo_libraries has 2,818 stars, 73 forks, 27 open issues and last shipped 7 months ago. tubearchivist leads on adoption by 204% (8,561 vs 2,818 stars). tubearchivist is written in Python under GPL-3.0; foss_photo_libraries is written in Python under MIT. tubearchivist has attracted 5% as many forks as stars, foss_photo_libraries 3%. tubearchivist was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.
Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.
← all 20902 open source comparisons
Side by side
| tubearchivist | foss_photo_libraries | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 8.6K | ★ 2.8K |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Written in | Python | Python |
| Last push | 2026-10-25 | 2026-04-18 |
| Forks | ⑂ 433 | ⑂ 73 |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes |
| Data ownership | Your server | Your server |
pick tubearchivist if
- You weight community size — 8.6K stars and counting
- You want the GPL-3.0 license terms
- Your stack matches Python
- You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance
pick foss_photo_libraries if
- You want the foss_photo_libraries feature set and don't need the biggest community
- You prefer the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches Python
- You evaluated both and foss_photo_libraries fits your workflow better
About tubearchivist
more screenshots and video Table of contents Docs with FAQ, and API documentation Core functionality Resources Installing Getting Started Known limitations Port Collisions Common Errors Roadmap Donate Core functionality Once your YouTube video collection grows, it becomes hard to search and find a specific video. That's where Tube Archivist comes in: By indexing your video collection with metadata from YouTube, you can organize, search and enjoy your archived YouTube videos without hassle offline through a convenient web interface. This includes: Subscribe to your favorite YouTube channels Download Videos using…
read the full tubearchivist overview →
About foss_photo_libraries
📸 Free and OpenSource Photo Libraries There are many great free and open source alternatives to closed source and/or paid photo libraries. This project aims to track and compare the feature set between the many different options with a focus on 'Gratis' (free as in free beer) open source photo libraries. 'Libre' (free as in free speech) projects are also welcome, but will likely need to be submitted via a pull request since the time in testing each different project is significant. ⚠️ Disclaimer: This repository displays both objective and subjective measures of feature quality. The owner of this repository…
read the full foss_photo_libraries overview →
More in Content & Publishing
Related comparisons
More Digital Asset Management (DAM) projects
Compare either of these against the rest of the Digital Asset Management (DAM) field.
Frequently asked questions
Is tubearchivist or foss_photo_libraries more popular?
tubearchivist has 8,561 GitHub stars and foss_photo_libraries has 2,818. tubearchivist has the larger community by that measure.
Are tubearchivist and foss_photo_libraries free?
Both are open source. tubearchivist is licensed under GPL-3.0 and foss_photo_libraries under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between tubearchivist and foss_photo_libraries?
tubearchivist is written in Python and foss_photo_libraries in Python. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.
Which should I choose, tubearchivist or foss_photo_libraries?
Choose tubearchivist if you want the larger community (8,561 stars) or its GPL-3.0 licence terms. Choose foss_photo_libraries if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.