[flagged]
And now they are -more- open. Did you misread their post? AGPL is just forced open source.
A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
151–160 of 304 posts
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#152I do appreciate _not_ using some home made license, thank you. Personally though, I find the AGPL too restrictive for projects. The [OSI Certified] EUPL I think is perfect: * If you don't modify the code: Behaves like the ASL2.0 * If you do modify the code: * Behaves like the LGPL in that your private codebase remains private, but changes to the library must be submitted back during a 'distribution' event * Behaves l…
This web page tells me they really don't want you to read the license. https://commission.europa.eu/content/european-union-public-l... You have to go to a list of languages, and then once you find English on the list it gives you a PDF or text, no HTML version. I read it, and I think the exception allowing for compatibility with the MPL would allow me to pretty much do what I want with a larger work, as long as I rel…
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#153So 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…
I way prefer them to do that than them to close their shop. They do all the development and then you have some big software development providers selling solutions for millions of € to government agencies and they get nothing out of it. That at some point they consider that a part should go back to them or if no money some code is fair.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. If you sell someone a AGPLv3 licensed software, that is completely okay and FOSS. If that someone sells someone else a (maybe modified) AGPLv3 licensed software, that is completely okay and FOSS. Not only Matrix can resell Element for a fee, so can you! That is open source and freedom for you. The ability to change or dual-license has always been limited to spec…
No, the Affero GPL is not "FOSS". It is Open Source but it is NOT libre because of the additional requirements (forced upstream contributions even on unreleased modified versions of the upstream software) imposed on potential forks of the project. Affero GPL is the premier tool of "open source" corporations to confuse potential contributors into THINKING that the project is FOSS and in order to trick them into giving…
From the FSF:
> The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there.
I don't understand how this corresponds with anything you are saying.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Yes. That's why you shouldn't contribute to software on permissive licenses. > What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this? Without that, Element would have to either pay people their fair share, or _leave_. They're not a charity, they're not doing this "for us," they're just extracting free labor.
Personally I would never contribute to AGPL software. I don’t want my contribution to forever be stuck in some political movement.
I do contribute to permissive licensed software.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#156Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, the Affero GPL is not "FOSS". It is Open Source but it is NOT libre because of the additional requirements (forced upstream contributions even on unreleased modified versions of the upstream software) imposed on potential forks of the project. Affero GPL is the premier tool of "open source" corporations to confuse potential contributors into THINKING that the project is FOSS and in order to trick them into giving…
From the FSF: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. I don't understand how this corresponds with anything you are saying.
It says if you modify the code you must distribute it. That means if, for instance, I wanted to modify Synapse to satisfy my users, for instance a bespoke authentication backend, I would be FORCED to release and distribute that change.
This is NOT the way the GPL works, because the AGPL forces you to make your change available to the parent corp so that they can benefit for free from your labor. The GPL only forces you to make your source code available if you plan to distribute it. The AGPL makes that requirement for even USING server software. It is not the same, at ALL!
And it's right there in what you quoted -- what part don't you understand about "must make available for download the source code"?
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have a broad opinion on CLAs, but the Element announcement [0] says it's just the Apache Software Foundation's CLA, which I think most people are fine with [1]. It's more or less just a copyright/patent grant. [0]: https://element.io/blog/element-to-adopt-agplv3/ [1]: https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html#...
They're ok with it when it goes to the ASF; which is not what's going on here.
I don't know if there's a copy of Element's CLA, and until there is we don't know that.
People are free to use the existing Apache-licensed versions of Synapse/Dendrite, they just won't get Element's contributions. Basically all this means is you can't resell Element's work for free. If you really want to build a business around the Apache Synapse/Dendrite, you're free to do exactly what Element is doing right now. I don't get what the problem is.
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to me it doesn't. When the thing is a movement in the software community, the perspective changes the essence of the thing.
You’re free to adopt whichever perspective you prefer. But Free Software is always Open Source. That’s an objective fact.
The way around isn't true though, which you claimed when you wrote is essentially the same
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matrix even has a foundation, they could have the CLA go tot he Matrix Foundation... but they aren't. Even then, I trust the Apache Foundation more than the Matrix Foundation- not that I have any particular distrust of the Matrix Foundation up to this point, just that they don't have the same track record as the Apache Foundation.
On their blog post, they claim to use the "standard Apache CLA" which indeed does grant the license to the ASF... presumably they plan to modify the CLA to grant the license to Element... but I haven't been successful finding a copy of their modifications. The Apache CLA also contains a critical clause : "In return, the Foundation shall not use Your Contributions in a way that is contrary to the public benefit or inc…
> Based on the Element blog-post as well as comments they have made here... I doubt they plan to keep that clause in place.
I'm trying to understand your objection, but I can't see how the community can suffer here. Even in the worst case scenario where the foundation versions wither and Element takes their versions closed source, can't the community fork the latest open source AGPL versions and continue the work?
Re: A new home and license (AGPL) for Synapse and friends
#160Earlier quoted context omitted.
From the FSF: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. I don't understand how this corresponds with anything you are saying.
It says if you modify the code you must distribute it. That means if, for instance, I wanted to modify Synapse to satisfy my users, for instance a bespoke authentication backend, I would be FORCED to release and distribute that change. This is NOT the way the GPL works, because the AGPL forces you to make your change available to the parent corp so that they can benefit for free from your labor. The GPL only forces y…
Oh, so modifying and releasing source code automatically makes you sign the CLA and contributes those changes back to the parent project? I'm not seeing how forcing modifications to libre software be published as libre software is a bad thing.