Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

element.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 304 posts

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

#171

Post by camgunz »

thomastjeffery wrote: post #91
Arathorn wrote: post #39

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.

The subject of this discussion is collaboration . You want to benefit from that collaboration without providing collaborators an equal opportunity. By instituting a CLA, you have disincentivized collaboration. I understand you have determined this to be a good compromise for you and the developers you pay to work on Element. That doesn't make this situation any less bad to the rest of the community. So that begs the…

> That doesn't make this situation any less bad to the rest of the community.

How is the community suffering here? Let's say Element adds a bunch of baller stuff to their versions over the next few months and then closes the source. Can't the community just fork the last AGPL version? You might say, "well then no one can take the AGPL fork and make their own closed-source business", but do you want them to? Even if you do, they still can with the existing Apache-licensed version, just like Element is doing right now.

You're arguing that Element will lose a lot of contributions, but TFA points out that despite being super open, the vast majority of contributions are still made by Element employees (which seems to be true [0]). It's not the case that Element is looking to monetize the (small) contributions of others, it is the case that others are looking to monetize the (huge) contributions of Element.

And besides, aren't the MSCs the core of Matrix? It's already super possible to build your own compliant client and server.

The situation is that Element needs money to keep developing the ecosystem. It would be cool if there were a big network of donors and contributions, but there isn't. You're essentially saying, "that's fine, go out of business then, and the community will keep developing the ecosystem", but that's not happening now, and it can still happen anyway with the Apache-licensed versions, which again people can still contribute to.

[0]: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/graphs/contributors

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

#172

Post by pgeorgi »

kragen wrote: post #140
LaGrange wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

probably you should only sign the cla if they pay you enough

The easiest route towards that might be contract work or employment.

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

#173

Post by hgs3 »

ralmidani wrote: post #120

It’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.

Nothing awkward about it. Even the FSF requires copyright assignment [1] and is A-okay with selling exceptions [2].

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.en.html

[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html

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

#174

Post by LukeShu »

dingnuts wrote: post #150
david_draco wrote: post #147

Earlier 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…

I cannot speak knowledgeably about the original (non-GNU) Affero GPL v1, but about the GNU AGPL v3 I can say:

It does not require "forced upstream contributions". What it requires is that users who use the program over the network can get a copy of the source code. Your statement sounds a lot like the FUD about the plain GPL requiring forced upstream contributions; no, it only requires you give the source to those who get a binary from you; the AGPL only requires that you give the source to those who have access to your server instance.

Now, there is a cogent argument that applies everything you said not just to the AGPL but the GPL as well; but that does not appear to be the argument that you're making. So I will proceed with the assumption that you consider the GNU GPL v3 to be acceptable (possibly with the exception of the AGPL-compatibility clause in section 13).

The only non-name-change-related/reflective difference between the GNU GPL v3 and the GNU AGPL v3 main license text is that the AGPL adds the following paragraph to section 13:

> Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. This Corresponding Source shall include the Corresponding Source for any work covered by version 3 of the GNU General Public License that is incorporated pursuant to the following paragraph.

Now, if you're giving your contributions to a for-profit company that can re-license your work to a non-copyleft license... yeah, stop doing that.

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

#175

Post by gtirloni »

lrvick wrote: post #146
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #96

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…

> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. If this was BSL I agree with you, but that is not the case. AGPL is about as open source as it gets. It is forced open source. I recommend AGPL to any of my clients open sourcing anything in a competitive environment these days. Free for the public, but greedy corpos that do not want to share changes and be part of the community are forced to pay to support the…

The AGPL is not the issue. The CLA is. It allows the project to change licenses at will, without going back to all contributors and asking for approval.

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

#176

Post by thomastjeffery »

Yoric wrote: post #144
thomastjeffery wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the CLA in place, there is no one true Synapse/Dendrite. There is the Element-provided AGPL version, and then there are X many private forks. The very existence of those forks breaks the community's ability to truly collaborate. Private forks still participate in our ecosystem!

Isn't that already the case without a CLA?

With the previous licensing, yes. The change to AGPL would have ended the ability to make proprietary forks, but that ability was preserved by the CLA instead.

This means that the only effective result of switching to the AGPL is that Element can demand money from anyone who makes a proprietary fork. Basically, the AGPL has been backdoored for profit.

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

#177

Post by kuschku »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #103
freedomben wrote: post #35

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]: >…

Everything that you side was said of Terraform months back, and of some other organisation before that. It is very unambiguous that this is part of a move to an open-core model. I would not consider this project open source any more, even though it still technically is so for now.

The point isn't to move to open core, but to stop competitors from building proprietary products on top of an open source project without giving back.

It's precisely what the (A)GPL was made for and it's something even Stallman and the FSF agree with.

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

#178

Post by auggierose »

ladyanita22 wrote: post #71
Macha wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGPL+CLA that assigns copyright to them. So element can do anything but others are held to the AGPL. I mean, it's better than SSPL, but considering how heavily they've marketed in the past on matrix being truly open, it's a little disappointing that they've chosen to go to asymmetric openness.

Agreed, I am not a fan of AGPL, but I could understand and accept it. Not with the CLA. The CLA means you'll have to pay for whatever you want privately developed.

No, the CLA means that if you want something privately developed, you have the option to do so by buying a license that allows that. Without the CLA, nobody would be able to do that, at least if there are any community contributions.

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

#179

Post by LukeShu »

LukeShu wrote: post #174
dingnuts wrote: post #150

Earlier 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…

I cannot speak knowledgeably about the original (non-GNU) Affero GPL v1, but about the GNU AGPL v3 I can say: It does not require "forced upstream contributions". What it requires is that users who use the program over the network can get a copy of the source code. Your statement sounds a lot like the FUD about the plain GPL requiring forced upstream contributions; no, it only requires you give the source to those wh…

Following up,

> I cannot speak knowledgeably about the original (non-GNU) Affero GPL v1

The only non-name-change-related difference between the GNU GPL v2 and the Affero GPL v1 is the addition of the following item to section 2:

> * d) If the Program as you received it is intended to interact with users through a computer network and if, in the version you received, any user interacting with the Program was given the opportunity to request transmission to that user of the Program's complete source code, you must not remove that facility from your modified version of the Program or work based on the Program, and must offer an equivalent opportunity for all users interacting with your Program through a computer network to request immediate transmission by HTTP of the complete source code of your modified version or other derivative work.

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

#180

Post by kuschku »

asymmetric wrote: post #165
Arathorn wrote: post #88

Earlier 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…

Something I don't understand is: how is other companies making money an existential threat for Element? It seems rather that Element's hopes of making enough money (to fund development) by selling hosted/managed services was misplaced.

In a market, you're always competing on cost/return.

Competitors can just take the open source parts of the matrix projects without contributing code or funding back.

As result, in a bid between Element and competitors, Element will lose because Element actually pays for maintaining these open source projects.

Post reply on HN