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

Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 68 posts

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#11

Post by makomk »

Laaas wrote: post #9
makomk wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reply about how in reality there's very little benefit to the community from the copyright being assigned to the foundation is a lot more perceptive than that comment, especially now that exactly what it foresaw has come to pass: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...

What do you mean it has come to pass?

The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license. It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since they're not interested in competing with Element. This was specifically to obstruct other companies from providing Matrix-based enterprise offerings. There was an announcement about it which made it onto HN a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#12

Post by Zetobal »

I am following the thread for years now and their financials were always a shitshow. I believe they never released anything on time or without the community begging for it. Well, except some fluff blog post at the end of the year without real data. I love Matrix but it's a fishy foundation. With this and Element not releasing server code under apache 2 anymore, it looks more and more like Element is going for entshitification.

Edit: Well, Josh is here so he will again start to deflect for some weeks and hope everyone will just forget about it until the next merry go round. sic

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#14

Post by alohapersona3 »

COGlory wrote: post #3

OK? What do we expect them to do with the money, exactly? As a donor, I would expect they fund the development of Matrix, which I believe Element is doing?

Luckily, it doesn't matter what individuals expect. There is written documentation on what the foundation is supposed to do or not to do: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-proposals/blob/mai...

Notably, "Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding for their time", which I understand as such that the Foundation does not pay directly the developers (same as other standards organizations like IETF). That said, if it was decided that developers get paid by Matrix.org Foundation for developing Matrix.org clients and servers, I wonder how this process works, given that I highly doubt that developers of Conduit, Fractal or Quaternion received any of the funds of Matrix.org foundation.

Main tasks of Matrix.org Foundation is maintaining the spec, documentation, owning IP, promotion and the matrix.org home server. The home server is "generously hosted" by UpCloud (i.e. is not using New Vector EMS), at least according to the matrix.org website.

Looking again at MSC1779, I noticed it says that one function of The Matrix.org Foundation is "Owns the copyright of the reference implementations of Matrix (i.e. everything in https://github.com/matrix-org). By assigning copyright to the Foundation, it’s protected against New Vector ever being tempted to relicense it." That protection apparently wasn't very effective, but also notably, New Vector and their leadership clearly have shown to not stand behind the goals of the Foundation. As the leadership of New Vector is also part of the leadership of the Foundation, I see some huge potential for COI here.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#15

Post by danShumway »

makomk wrote: post #11
Laaas wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean it has come to pass?

The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license. It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since they're not interest…

What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allows that.

But with a CLA, it becomes much easier for their code to move towards source-available.

The thing is, a GPL or AGPL license without a CLA would actually be a reasonable defense against closing down the software in the future, since it would block Element from being relicensed to something more restrictive without the permission of the copyright holders. Even if there is a legitimate need to sell exceptions, a CLA that gave the company a limited right to sell specific exceptions would be better than full copyright assignment and would actually increase my trust in the project rather than worrying me.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#16

Post by vilunov »

Zetobal wrote: post #12

I am following the thread for years now and their financials were always a shitshow. I believe they never released anything on time or without the community begging for it. Well, except some fluff blog post at the end of the year without real data. I love Matrix but it's a fishy foundation. With this and Element not releasing server code under apache 2 anymore, it looks more and more like Element is going for entshit…

> Well, Josh is here so he will again start to deflect for some weeks and hope everyone will just forget about it until the next merry go round

This has been my experience with how Matrix handles critique in general, e.g. the response to "why not matrix?" which left me disappointed. Looking at this, and also at low quality of the reference clients and servers, over-engineered protocols and the poor UX in general it does not convince me that Matrix is a good solution to consider.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#17

Post by brunoqc »

danShumway wrote: post #15
makomk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license. It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since they're not interest…

What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allo…

Yeah. I got burned by a CLA before. Never again.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#18

Post by joshsimmons »

Zetobal wrote: post #12

I am following the thread for years now and their financials were always a shitshow. I believe they never released anything on time or without the community begging for it. Well, except some fluff blog post at the end of the year without real data. I love Matrix but it's a fishy foundation. With this and Element not releasing server code under apache 2 anymore, it looks more and more like Element is going for entshit…

I get that we're operating in a low trust environment, and you don't yet have any reason to trust me.

I will say this: I'm not here to carry water for past performance. I _am_ here to build the foundation into the organization the community deserves, and I have a track record when it comes to making organizations more responsive to the communities they serve.

Not only will I respond to the questions and concerns, I am actually working on systemic solutions that will provide transparency as a matter of course.

Of course, these are just words for now. Judge me by my actions in the days and months ahead, and know that I do aim to earn your trust. Edited to add: *and I aim to build the foundation into the kind of organization that, by merit of its rules, processes, and community representation in governance, doesn't require us to be trusting in the first place.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#19

Post by dmacvicar »

danShumway wrote: post #15
makomk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license. It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since they're not interest…

What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allo…

NextCloud does exactly this: AGPL, no CLA.

https://github.com/nextcloud/server#contribution-guidelines-

>Nextcloud doesn't require a CLA (Contributor License Agreement). The copyright belongs to all the individual contributors. Therefore we recommend that every contributor adds the following line to the header of a file if they changed it substantially: > >@copyright Copyright (c) , ()

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#20

Post by Zetobal »

joshsimmons wrote: post #18
Zetobal wrote: post #12

I am following the thread for years now and their financials were always a shitshow. I believe they never released anything on time or without the community begging for it. Well, except some fluff blog post at the end of the year without real data. I love Matrix but it's a fishy foundation. With this and Element not releasing server code under apache 2 anymore, it looks more and more like Element is going for entshit…

I get that we're operating in a low trust environment, and you don't yet have any reason to trust me. I will say this: I'm not here to carry water for past performance. I _am_ here to build the foundation into the organization the community deserves, and I have a track record when it comes to making organizations more responsive to the communities they serve. Not only will I respond to the questions and concerns, I a…

I'll believe you when I see more than empty phrases but tbh I am over hyping up Element/Matrix, so do whatever you want.
Post reply on HN