Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation • Hacker News Board

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#41

Post by danShumway » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 12:25 AM UTC

feanaro wrote: post #40

alohapersona3 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If next there is "Synapse Pro" that is proprietary and sold by Element and includes features not present in the open source version of Synapse but relevant to company or government use of Matrix, the AGPL-only version of Synapse will lack those features. This will hinder companies that (potentially) require "Synapse Pro"-features from contributing to the AGPL-only version of Synapse. We have seen this happen before.

This situation is no different than it was when Synapse was licensed under Apache, though.

Agreed (mostly). Apache is not a defense against proprietary relicensing regardless of who owns the code (and it's why Matrix is able to make this change even though it didn't have a CLA before).

It's a shame though because this change feels like it's weaponizing the AGPL to make the code harder to use rather than relying on the AGPL to preserve software freedom, and it's a shame because I think a more nuanced and limited contributor agreement with narrower permissions could potentially have the opposite effect and be a highly positive change and a highly credible commitment to keeping the project Open, without closing off any of the revenue opportunities that Element seems to be chasing.

I will push back a little though on the idea that nothing is different at all. This change also has the side-effect of giving contributors fewer rights over the code they write themselves. It's not clear to me whether the copyright assignment here means that the contributor is also bound by the AGPL for the code they themselves submit. If that's the case, then this is a meaningful reduction of contributor rights. I think the GPL works best when it is a universal mutual agreement by all parties to keep the code Open to everyone under the same terms; not when it is used selectively to close off specific rights of only specific parties.

But as it stands, without a CLA I could write the same code for both Element and a more permissive fork of Element and I could choose to relicense the code I offer Element to allow for the more permissive use. With a CLA, I don't know that I can do that.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#42

Post by justin66 » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 1:52 AM UTC

alohapersona3 wrote: post #14

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). Th…

Who are you? What is the Matrix.org foundation to you?

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#43

Post by KomoD » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 2:00 AM UTC

EarlKing wrote: post #35

alohapersona3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). Th…

Without looking at how this organization works, let me clarify: a 501(c)(3) cannot be paying for software development insofar as this constitutes Product Development. Product Development is outside the scope of charitable work and, if caught, would open them up to back taxes on those 'charitable' contributions plus fines. This is not something that applies just to Matrix, but to the Free Software Foundation for that…

> This is not something that applies just to Matrix

FYI The Matrix foundation is not a 501(c)(3), it's not even registered in the US.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#44

Post by tentacleuno » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 2:48 AM UTC

Jasper_ wrote: post #36

Arathorn wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wow, the pile-on is real tonight. I suggested that GrapheneOS stopped enumerating potential ways to attack Matrix rooms on Twitter if they actually wanted to discourage attacks. Meanwhile, that issue has not remotely been abandoned, and has continued to be worked on in private (given the risk it might have security impact) - although as it's a rare edge case without a known security impact, it's competing with a lot…

Talking about a serious bug where thousands of people appear to be kicked from rooms that's been going on for over a year is not a "pile-on". It's a very bad experience for everyone involved, and people are just pointing it out. Your inability to empathize with other people having a bad experience using your product is not doing you favors here. Matrix and Element are consistently one of the buggiest messaging applic…

> Matrix and Element are consistently one of the buggiest messaging applications I interact with

Oh same, though I've found that Nheko Reborn is a much better client than Element (like, it's not even close). There's no getting around Synapse though; we're actually experiencing the bug I linked above, and it's absolutely dreadful to deal with.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#45

Post by tentacleuno » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 2:50 AM UTC

Arathorn wrote: post #34

tentacleuno wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> wow, the pile-on is real tonight. My intent isn't to "pile-on"; it's to provide insight into the issues people have with Matrix. I understand that it's your creation, but judging by this and the GitHub thread, it seems like you get quite defensive in these situations. Ultimately, these are valid criticisms of the platform; people aren't personally attacking you or the project. Personally I commend what you've creat…

> The Graphene guy posted it on Twitter, and by doing so you claimed he "slagged [you] off"[0]. I forget the precise contents of their deleted tweets, and I'd be first to admit that for better or worse I try to be authentic when typing here or elsewhere, rather than faking being calm & anodyne. Based on the feedback here & elsewhere, that's probably a mistake. In this instance, having Graphene screaming about how awf…

> In this instance, having Graphene screaming about how awful Matrix is and enumerating ways to cause moderation problems was not helpful during a moderation incident, especially where we had been scrambling to help them.

To be fair, from what I hear GrapheneOS doesn't have the best reputation for its communication with other people, but strcat did appear rather apologetic in the thread. Regardless, we're experiencing the bug I linked, so it's definitely still an issue.

> especially where we had been scrambling to help them.

Hmm, this is where I disagree -- if you've been scrambling to help, wouldn't the issue have been fixed by now?

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#46

Post by alohapersona3 » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 4:12 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #42

alohapersona3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). Th…

Who are you? What is the Matrix.org foundation to you?

Why would it be relevant, who I am?

I am interested in the future of Matrix as an open, decentralized protocol. I increasingly see a risk in the behavior of New Vector as the VC-funded effective owner of the Matrix protocol. To me, the Matrix.org Foundation was supposed to be the organization that saves the community from the interests of VCs.

Over recent years I got the feeling the foundation became mostly a fake nonprofit organization to attract donations from the community while the for-profit company attracts VC money. The foundation did not manage to properly include the community in any of its official positions (Board, Spec Team) in 5 years, clearly showing that this is not in its interest.

For Matrix to be a success, we need to design it such that there can be contributions from others than New Vector. This is not happening and because of that, it's very likely that as soon as New Vector is running out of money, Matrix is going to collapse. Having at least a bunch of money in the foundation would reduce that risk, but New Vector seems to even be siphoning off that.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#47

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 4:24 AM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #42

alohapersona3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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). Th…

Who are you? What is the Matrix.org foundation to you?

Who cares? They made a coherent argument and cited sources; their identity seems irrelevant.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#48

Post by EarlKing » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 5:53 AM UTC

KomoD wrote: post #43

EarlKing wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without looking at how this organization works, let me clarify: a 501(c)(3) cannot be paying for software development insofar as this constitutes Product Development. Product Development is outside the scope of charitable work and, if caught, would open them up to back taxes on those 'charitable' contributions plus fines. This is not something that applies just to Matrix, but to the Free Software Foundation for that…

> This is not something that applies just to Matrix FYI The Matrix foundation is not a 501(c)(3), it's not even registered in the US.

A quick search turned up a registration for them in the UK? Is this them?[1] And if so..... where is any of this even documented on the matrix.org website? Lastly, use of a CIC is a horrible idea for precisely the sort of shady shit we're seeing here.

[1] https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c...

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#49

Post by eredengrin » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 8:48 AM UTC

alohapersona3 wrote: post #46

justin66 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are you? What is the Matrix.org foundation to you?

Why would it be relevant, who I am? I am interested in the future of Matrix as an open, decentralized protocol. I increasingly see a risk in the behavior of New Vector as the VC-funded effective owner of the Matrix protocol. To me, the Matrix.org Foundation was supposed to be the organization that saves the community from the interests of VCs. Over recent years I got the feeling the foundation became mostly a fake no…

> For Matrix to be a success, we need to design it such that there can be contributions from others than New Vector.

What exactly do you think is stopping such contributions? It seems to me there is plenty of room for community involvement, it is simply a matter of the community doing it (which many have been of course, but there is also always more work to do and free skilled labor is not easy to come by in large quantities).

> Having at least a bunch of money in the foundation would reduce that risk, but New Vector seems to even be siphoning off that.

I'm not following. How does the foundation having money reduce this risk? In particular, how do you think the foundation would help prevent the "collapse" of matrix if they had more funding? If you ask me I'd think that funding developers would be a good way to do that, and as the primary force behind the reference implementations, wouldn't funding Element/New Vector be a good way to do that? Although I was under the impression that resources primarily flowed the opposite way, from Element to the Foundation, but I haven't kept close track so could be wrong...

In any case, I'd echo the original sentiment of this thread - as someone who joined their patreon back when it first started and still haven't left it, I don't really mind if they haven't documented for the public where exactly every penny went as long as it's going towards the people developing matrix. Yeah maybe not ideal, but given that the foundation has very little money to begin with I have a tough time faulting it. It would change things if they were bringing in millions, but when the community patreon is not even bringing in enough to hire a full time minimum wage employee in California, much less a developer, accountant, or lawyer, documenting the expenditure of a few pennies is pretty low on my priority list.

Re: Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation

#50

Post by grey_earthling » Mon, Nov 20, 2023, 9:32 AM UTC

danShumway wrote: post #39

grey_earthling wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Element requiring a CLA has only 1 practical effect: Element are effectively saying that in their repo of Synapse/Dendrite, they won't integrate any copyleft code they can't relicense. Other organisations could still choose to maintain a repo of Synapse/Dendrite that integrates any AGPL code, including all code released by Element. That might be a better upstream than Element! — but it would take work. For it to happ…

> they won't integrate any copyleft code they can't relicense. Right, that's exactly the controversy, people are scared of the code being relicensed. Rather than a CLA, a limited license grant from contributors to allow dual licensing but not the transition away from AGPL might potentially be a way to provide that kind of funding and to close off companies building proprietary products on top of Element without contr…

Yeah, that seems fair. Though I suppose a limited licence grant is slightly more complex of an arrangement.

If it's any consolation, compared to a month ago when everything was permissively-licensed, Element is no more or less able to make a proprietary fork, and everyone else is now less able.