So AGPL+CLA: > The benefit of switching to AGPLv3 is that it obliges downstream developers to contribute back to the core project - either by releasing their modifications as open source for the benefit of the whole Matrix ecosystem, or by contacting Element for an alternative license. Future code contributors to Synapse will need to sign a contributor license agreement (CLA) This makes it clear that they intent to s…
A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
111–120 of 304 posts
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#112This 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.
What’s the deal with CLAs? I’m not familiar with them.
They grant the organisation (in this case a for-profit) the exclusive right to redistribute the project (and contributions made to it) under a different license. Including a proprietary licence.
It is only required if you intend to move to an open-core model, or intend to eventually make the project non-open-source entirely. This is a common first step for many organisations that have moved in this direction.
The announcement even makes it clear that they intend to ship versions for a fee, so it's very likely that we'll see a "community edition" and a "full edition" at some point. Or some other model which amounts to the same general idea.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#113Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#114So AGPL+CLA: > The benefit of switching to AGPLv3 is that it obliges downstream developers to contribute back to the core project - either by releasing their modifications as open source for the benefit of the whole Matrix ecosystem, or by contacting Element for an alternative license. Future code contributors to Synapse will need to sign a contributor license agreement (CLA) This makes it clear that they intent to s…
What are your thoughts on Stallman explicitly saying that selling exceptions is fine [1]?
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought Element was founded after the Matrix Foundation, and thus Element has been using the Foundations code all along? Yes, they have continued to voluntarily contribute to the Foundation, knowing that it was in their own best interests to grow the Matrix community.
No, the rough timeline is this: * 2014: Matrix core team creates Matrix, writes Synapse and other implementations, starts writing the Matrix spec * 2017: Matrix core team wants to be able to focus on this exclusively as their dayjob; creates New Vector (aka Element) to fund their work. * 2018: Matrix core team establishes the Foundation as a neutral custodian of the standard on behalf of everyone in the ecosystem. El…
Thank you for that clarification. I would echo the other comment- What "huge companies who bear no cost for supporting the Matrix ecosystem whatsoever discover they can sell proprietary forks for many $"? Please call these "huge corporations" that are making a fortune selling proprietary forks of Element/Synapse out? A huge part of the reason Matrix has spread far and wide is because it was open source, under a foundation, and had quality, liberally licensed open source implementation. If it weren't for these facts (I grant there may be some debate on how much the liberality of the license played into it, but I am pretty confidant it has been a significant factor) I doubt it would have grown nearly as much, and Element corp would either not exist or be much smaller. I think this change is a huge mistake, and I only hope that the Matrix protocol survives this mistake, hopefully the Matrix Foundation will continue to be a good steward of the protocol.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#116So AGPL+CLA: > The benefit of switching to AGPLv3 is that it obliges downstream developers to contribute back to the core project - either by releasing their modifications as open source for the benefit of the whole Matrix ecosystem, or by contacting Element for an alternative license. Future code contributors to Synapse will need to sign a contributor license agreement (CLA) This makes it clear that they intent to s…
Are permissive licenses also "screwing over the community"? Those also allow third parties to use the code in proprietary software. What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this?
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a great step, except that it effectively doesn't matter, because anyone interested in ignoring the copyleft mandate can afford to buy their way around it. The only effective purpose for a copyleft license here is to get paid for permissive license! I'm not against the Element devs getting paid, and I get that this is their best shot at that. I still won't count this as "a good thing in my book". The whole point…
> The whole point of the [A]GPL is that the end user can access source code. Letting people buy their way out of copyleft effectivley nullifies that. But previously, anyone who wanted to deny end users from accessing their modified version of the source code could do so, immediately and at no cost to themselves. This adds a barrier to doing so. I'm not saying it's the ideal situation. What I'm saying is that from the…
Yes, that is an improvement, but that improvement ends at the boundary of proprietary forks that pay their way out of copyleft.
Encouraging corporations to pollute the Matrix network with proprietary clients will surely introduce fragmentation to the overall ecosystem. This will only hurt end users.
The other side of the coin is that Element will be in a stable position to pay its devs, which is great! Regardless of that, I'm not a fan of this strategy. Hopefully it will pan out well enough that proprietary forks fail to compete with Element's AGPL repo.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#118So AGPL+CLA: > The benefit of switching to AGPLv3 is that it obliges downstream developers to contribute back to the core project - either by releasing their modifications as open source for the benefit of the whole Matrix ecosystem, or by contacting Element for an alternative license. Future code contributors to Synapse will need to sign a contributor license agreement (CLA) This makes it clear that they intent to s…
What are your thoughts on Stallman explicitly saying that selling exceptions is fine [1]? [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more.
Stallman's term is "free software", this said "open source".
I use OSD to define it, so I consider it technically open source, but to me it's open source that isn't under an acceptable license.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the rough timeline is this: * 2014: Matrix core team creates Matrix, writes Synapse and other implementations, starts writing the Matrix spec * 2017: Matrix core team wants to be able to focus on this exclusively as their dayjob; creates New Vector (aka Element) to fund their work. * 2018: Matrix core team establishes the Foundation as a neutral custodian of the standard on behalf of everyone in the ecosystem. El…
> huge companies who bear no cost for supporting the Matrix ecosystem whatsoever discover they can sell proprietary forks for many $ What, exactly, are you talking about here, Matthew?
Well, I’m not going to name & shame them given we’re trying to sort out alternative licensing so they can continue their forks…
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#120It’s awkward to ask people to assign everything to you in a way that makes you the only entity that can sell AGPL exceptions. If contributors are paid for their contributions that would be awesome, but it’s not clear that they are.