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

211–220 of 304 posts

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

#211

Post by robertlagrant »

exabrial wrote: post #83
robertlagrant wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The last point I never understand. E.g. take Redis if it were licenced in that way: where is the line where it counts as a service? Directly exposing a Redis port? Putting a REST API over the top of it and selling a cache as a service? Making a paid for JWT invalidation service that's basically a small application layer of Redis? Or something else?

I suggest reading the license as IANAL... but my understanding is all three of those would count as a "distribution" event. Keep in mind, you would only need to "make source available" if and only if you modified Redis. And even in that case, you only have to submit the modifications to Redis. So even though a "distribution event" is happening, if there are no changes to the Redis server or client library itself, you…

I'm referring to the second bullet point, though.

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

#212

Post by Arathorn »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #107
Arathorn wrote: post #31

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…

> 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 You wouldn't need a CLA if you didn't want to reserve the exclusive right to move from an open source model to an open core model. You wouldn't need a CLA if you didn't want the privilege to switch away from an open source licence at will. Yes, a C…

We don’t want to un-open-source the project. We’re not trying to pull a hashicorp or set up to do so; we just want the option to dual license to sell AGPL exceptions.

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

#213

Post by _lvbh »

themoonisachees wrote: post #17
MR4D wrote: post #2

I’m confused. Synapse and Dendrite projects are forked. Ok. But then they say they won’t be continuing to fund development and “They’ll need to get their upstream releases from Element’s repositories going forward.” that seems to mean that future downloads should come from Element? That sounds more like a handoff than a fork. Can someone clarify this a bit?

The old repos "belong" to the matrix foundation, but the work on them was mostly done by the element team. This is them officializing that synapse and dendrite are element branded projects, not matrix (so yes, it is indeed a handoff), except they are branding this as a fork because the license is changing. They also are changing licences to require downstream forkers to also open-source their changes, ensuring corpor…

> beeper might be in some hot water

Beeper’s Synapse fork is already open source. Element has not had any license changes as far as I know and their applications are hard forks, meaning that even if the license changes in the future, they are safe from it.

Not sure if AGPL’s “network use is distribution” is a concern but most of their bridges are open source as well.

Disclaimer: Currently working part time for Beeper. I specifically asked the founder about this after reading the article.

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

#214

Post by _lvbh »

jpeeler wrote: post #183

"Element is losing its ability to compete in the very ecosystem it has created" - anybody know what proprietary companies/projects are possibly being referred to here?

Possibly Beeper? It’s partially proprietary and offers hosted bridges with Discord/Whatsapp/etc.

Disclaimer: working part time for them

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

#215

Post by cxr »

saagarjha wrote: post #209
cxr wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What?

Your claim, if I understand it correctly, is that selling an alternate license is OK because you're not doing anything unethical directly; after all, you're offering your version with the code. If they don't provide their source, they're the ones being unethical, not you. I don't think this actually works, because if you look at the reason GPL exists in the first place, it's to prevent precisely this kind of move. It…

My claim is that my characterization of how Stallman thinks about this is an accurate characterization of how he thinks about this.

> It is "immoral" to release your code under a permissive license

That doesn't jibe with the FSF philosophy at all. I get the feeling that I'm interacting with someone who "knows" more about the FSF and Stallman based on what they've heard or imagined rather than actually reading what either Stallman or FSF have to say.

Permissive licenses like the X11 license are free software licenses and have the FSF's (and Stallman's) approval.

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

#216

Post by camgunz »

lannisterstark wrote: post #204
camgunz wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Much of your comment is speculation and unfounded accusations. > This makes it clear that they intent to ship under some alternative license, for a fee. It makes it clear they intend to ship under the AGPLv3. What's wrong with that? They can change the license at a later date? Just fork! > I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. This is bananas; the AGPLv3 is extremely open source. And again, nothing pr…

[flagged]

> the slightest criticism

This thread is full of people being super negative about the Element team. It's definitely not "slight" criticism.

> a lot of people come out of woodwork with the tried and true "they owe you nothing" line.

Criticism is how we improve and I'm a fan, but there's a difference between constructive criticism (which would be something like, "it looks like you're trying to build a sustainable revenue stream to continue your work on Matrix/Element but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it, here's an alternative") and entitlement.

Entitlement is demanding that Element essentially not run a business to fund Matrix/Element development. You might not think you're doing that, but what else could you be doing?

- You can't think Element is getting special treatment; anyone could do what they're doing here.

- You can't think this change could open the door to some entity buying a proprietary license and "causing problems" because that applies to the Apache version as well (you can close source an Apache 2.0 project).

- You can't think Element would lock away community contributions; the community is free to fork Element's version if they do ever close the source.

- You can't think they're tricking people into contributing to their versions and profiting unethically from them; they're being super upfront about this (they make you sign the CLA that makes this clear!) and anyone is free to continue contributing to the Apache-licensed versions. And again if you don't like either of those options, make your own fork! Or write your own server, the Matrix/Element people have erected a super open development and standards process (you're welcome!)

Thus your only objection must be that Element is forcing people to pay if they want to run a closed-source version of their code. Another way to say that is you feel entitled to run a closed-source version of their code for free. You might say, "but Element's CLA gives them the ability to run a closed-source version of my code for free" which is true. The difference is they're giving you a choice, whereas you're demanding it from them.

> A community is allowed to have certain expectations, champ.

Please don't condescend, avoid snark, yadda.

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

#217

Post by camgunz »

ensignavenger wrote: post #208
camgunz wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then I don't really understand why you're upset now. Element is doing what everyone says you should do: have a GPL project and sell hosting, support, and proprietary licenses. We can't have the only model be "get donations or be independently wealthy".

I'm not sure who this "everyone" person is, but I have certainly never suggested having a GPL/AGPL project and then selling proprietary licenses. (The other two, very much yes.)

This seems like a tedious point. What are you looking for here, a survey or something? Are you in good-faith interested? I think if you were you'd google around a little.

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

#218

Post by sokoloff »

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…

> As usual, remember to never sign a CLA.

Never sign a CLA unless you want the recipient to have full rights to your code.

I’ve signed the FSF CLA, precisely because I want them to have that higher level of rights to my contribution.

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

#219

Post by sokoloff »

GuB-42 wrote: post #186
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…

> forced upstream contributions No open source licence I am aware of, including AGPL forces upstream contribution. They force you to make the source code available to anyone who asks. It is very different. Upstream contribution typically requires a significant investment, there is usually some process to follow, quality requirements, sometimes a bit of politics. Here, you only need to go to the dev machine, make a bi…

> They force you to make the source code available to anyone who asks.

That’s not precisely correct. It requires that iff the person asking is a user of the code in question (including over a network for AGPL).

I can take AGPL code, modify it, run it privately for my own purposes, tell you that I’ve done that, and still turn down your request for the source code.

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

#220

Post by camgunz »

lmm wrote: post #201
camgunz wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the other hand, if Apple or Microsoft or Google add some really baller stuff, then Element's version has to compete by blindly reproducing that work. > Even worse, if Apple or Microsoft or Google add some mediocre feature, but use that feature to make their users incompatible with Element's version, then Element will have to compete by blindly reproducing a feature that no one actually wants! Can't they already…

> Can't they already do this w/ the Apache version? They can, but they now have more of a financial incentive to do that, since they're implicitly going to get paid by Apple/Microsoft/Google.

Only if the diff against the Apache version is worth money though, which doesn't seem like it will be for a while. I can think of other more likely scenarios:

- Apple forks the Apache version

- Microsoft contracts some Element developers

- Google buys Element

- Facebook makes some contributions under the AGPLv3 (okay, maybe this one isn't super likely)

In any and all cases, the community still has the AGPL version. I really don't see a downside here, and plus I don't know what companies are supposed to do if not this.

Post reply on HN