Live data from Hacker News

A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

element.io

41–50 of 304 posts

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#41

This really sucks. I have always had great hope for the Matrix protocol. The AGPL isn't my favorite open source license, but it has its place... but a CLA? That is a complete nonstarter. No one should ever sign a CLA that gives a company more rights to your contributions than you get from theirs.

> No one should ever sign a CLA that gives a company more rights to your contributions than you get from theirs.

Why not? I've signed CLAs to contribute to open source projects that I use every day. These projects already offer me tremendous value for free, and while my contributions may help other people, they mostly help me since they tend to be fixes for problems that I personally have with them. Having the fix contributed to the project also usually means that it becomes someone else's problem to maintain it in the long run, so it's not even a burden for me.

So I already get way more than I give in that kind of situation. Knowing that they can potentially profit off of my contributions gives me some peace of mind. If they can build a sustainable business from it, then they'll be able to survive and I'll be able to keep benefiting from it. It's a win-win!

Of course, I guess it's possible (maybe) that they'll be able to do a bait and switch and force me to start paying. I've never had that happen to me, and I might change my mind if it does.

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as CEO at Element - I don't particularly like CLAs either from an ideological perspective. However, the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks is if it has the right to do so, which means requiring a CLA. Otherwise the license change would not solve the problem that it's trying to solve, i.e. to provide a way for proprietary forks to contribute back to…

> the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks I have a very straightforward and reasonable solution for you: don't do that.

A better comment here would be a little more curious about why they're doing it (so they can run a business and fund future Matrix/Element development) or to maybe suggest some alternatives.

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#43
Oh wow, this is laudably frank in my opinion. They are quite up front about the motivation behind this change. Two relevant excerpts:

> Over the last year or two Matrix has evolved from ‘explosive growth’ to being a ‘category’ in its own right. In other words, ‘Matrix-based’ is now specified as a requirement in massive public and private sector tenders - in which multinationals compete to provide Matrix-based products and services.

and

> Today we have arrived at a crossroads. We have succeeded in making Matrix wildly successful, but Element is losing its ability to compete in the very ecosystem it has created. It is hard for Element to innovate and adapt as quickly as companies whose business model is developing proprietary Matrix-based products and services without the responsibility and costs of maintaining the bulk of Matrix. In order to be fair to our customers, we need to be able to put more focus on them and their specific requirements.

So basically, Element can't compete with other companies for the contracts that only exists because of Element's work, because the other companies can focus just on making proprietary extensions for code that Element has more or less the sole burden of maintaining. So Element is saying to those companies, hey, either AGPL your modifications and extensions (AGPL is relevant since if you're running eg sidecar services with Synapse or Dendrite, this will still hit those sidecar services), or pay for a license for our code. This seems fair to me, to be honest.

And yeah, I understand people's moral objections to the CLA, but it's necessary for Element's strategy to work. And maybe I'm naive but I do believe Element and the team have Matrix's best interests at heart, they're just also grappling with making money and being self-sustaining, and so I hope that they succeed in that for the sake of the broader Matrix project and ecosystem.

This change also does not seem likely to me to affect open-source work or the broader Matrix community for the most part. If you want to self-host a Matrix server this shouldn't change anything for you. All the code you're running is already open-source, you don't need to do anything. Matrix as a protocol and an ecosystem of servers and clients and users won't be affected by this, just companies selling services that are based on Element's open-source code.

And protocol governance hasn't changed, it's still in the hands of the Matrix Foundation, and this won't change that. And you can say, hey, Matrix protocol development has always been driven by Element and its priorities and interests—yes, that's absolutely true. But this change won't affect that either! And in fact, if the CLA pushes pushes community development efforts away from Synapse/Dendrite and toward other projects like Conduit[0], then this might even be good for the ecosystem and community governance by decreasing Element/Synapse's influence over the direction protocol, which I'd be happy to see.

So yeah, as someone who is self-hosting Synapse and really rooting for an open, free, community-centric Matrix protocol to succeed, I'm not heartbroken over this change. I'm actually even a bit hopeful about what it means for Element and Matrix going forward.

[0] https://conduit.rs/

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#44
post #7

Such a casual blog post for what is essentially the announcement of the death of the matrix project.

This seems a little premature. It reminds me of Monty Python and the Holy Grail where the "bring out your dead" cart[1] is coming and a guy tries to dump a body, and the body says "I'm not dead."

It's definitely not a good look, but when taken in context this ironically might be the thing that saves the project from death.[2]

[1]: https://youtu.be/Jdf5EXo6I68?si=CGv7j8J5H1XnW3i1&t=55

[2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#45
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you try to contribute code back upstream, the company will require you to grant them broad rights to do whatever they want with it, including to relicense the code you are contributing under a proprietary license. You do not get the same rights in return to the upstream code. So the company can yake your contributions and go proprietary and you have no recourse.

I'm surprised it's not more of a thing to have a CLA that allows relicensing only to another OSI-approved license. I don't see many examples along those lines[0]. And the "OSI-approved" wording would allow a project to freely switch between MIT/BSD/GPL/etc or even create their own license (as long as they get it OSI-approved) without having to hunt down past contributors for permission. I would never sign an open-end…

Well, the point of the AGPL + CLA combo is precisely to be able to profit off of community contributions by distributing proprietary versions.

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#46

There are two related but separate issues here that need to be considered: 1. Relicense to AGPLv3 2. New CLA in place for contributions. For a project like Matrix, the move to AGPLv3 seems clearly a good one. This is not just a library that you add to your app, it's a product in and of itself, and it's been getting abused by proprietary companies who are robbing the ecosystem. From the blog post from Element[1][2]: >…

I think the AGPLv3 is a poor choice for what is essentially the reference implementation of the Matrix Protocol. The whole point of a protocol is to allow different implementations. Having a base implementation that others can freely fork and develop into whatever they want with whatever license model they want is a good thing for the protocol. I can understand if the Foundation were to maintain a very basic reference implementation- maybe even just a library or set of libraries with no real UI. And then corporations could develop an AGPLv3 (or whatever license they want) Project on top of it.

The CLA is an absolute atrocity, though. It is a bright line of perdition. No one should sign it.

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#47
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're trying to monetize other's contributions without giving them the right in return.

If folks want to keep their contributions on their own fork and not sign a CLA that's fine too. Yes, we're trying to monetise our code in order to pay folks to keep working on it.

Yes, I can choose not to contribute. But I'm not able to sell commercial licenses of your contributions.

This fundemental asymmetry is incredibly unfortunate for a project whose stated mission is being a fundamental communication layer.

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as CEO at Element - I don't particularly like CLAs either from an ideological perspective. However, the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks is if it has the right to do so, which means requiring a CLA. Otherwise the license change would not solve the problem that it's trying to solve, i.e. to provide a way for proprietary forks to contribute back to…

> the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks I have a very straightforward and reasonable solution for you: don't do that.

My understanding is they're already doing it, and they're already allowed to under the previous license.

The CLA is also my least favorite part of this change, but it is overall a shift towards copyleft vs. the previous permissive licensing. If this means the project can remain FOSS and the company can continue to work on it, that's a good thing in my book.

If they ever relicensed to a proprietary license though I'd be calling for a fork.

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#49
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If folks want to keep their contributions on their own fork and not sign a CLA that's fine too. Yes, we're trying to monetise our code in order to pay folks to keep working on it.

Yes, I can choose not to contribute. But I'm not able to sell commercial licenses of your contributions. This fundemental asymmetry is incredibly unfortunate for a project whose stated mission is being a fundamental communication layer.

If it's any consolation, the fundamental asymmetry replaces a previous asymmetry that Element uniquely donated all of its core Matrix code, including ownership, to the Foundation. But yes, I wish that the economics balanced without a CLA. But they don't.

Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends

#50

So does this pretty much boil down to "we are re-licensing Synapse and Dendrite from Apache to AGPL"? In what way is the "owner" of the code significant, in this case, other than being a proxy for the maintainer of the most popular fork? These projects are open source, so the only thing this code is really attached to is the license. Whatever entity controls the majority of developer effort effectively controls the f…

The point of contention here is not really the license change, but the CLA attached to it. Basically, if you write code for Synapse/Dendrite, submit it to the project, and sign the CLA, the (for-profit) Element Foundation may relicense your code under a proprietary license. It's intended to keep contributions from proprietary clients coming without them fleeing the ship because they see the four letter word AGPL.
Post reply on HN