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

121–130 of 304 posts

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

#121

Post by fabrice_d »

mrob wrote: post #116
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…

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 using permissive license allows businesses to take unfair advantage of the work done by the community for their own profit without contributing anything, but it's explicit in the license terms. When you go with *GPL + CLA, it's more subtle: bad things can happen, but pinky promises are made that won't be the case. We've seen that movie before of course.

As a community contributor, I may not want my contributions to be used to enrich a corporation that doesn't give back to the commons.

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

#122

Post by ralmidani »

benatkin wrote: post #118
abdullahkhalids wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your thoughts on Stallman explicitly saying that selling exceptions is fine [1]? [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. Stallman's term is "free software", this said "open source". I use OSD to define it, so I consider it technically open source, but to me it's open source that isn't under an acceptable license.

Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same thing, just looked at from different angles.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

“In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.”

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

#124

Post by benatkin »

ralmidani wrote: post #122
benatkin wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. Stallman's term is "free software", this said "open source". I use OSD to define it, so I consider it technically open source, but to me it's open source that isn't under an acceptable license.

Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same thing, just looked at from different angles. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... “In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exce…

Not to me it doesn't. When the thing is a movement in the software community, the perspective changes the essence of the thing.

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

#125

Post by ralmidani »

benatkin wrote: post #124
ralmidani wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same thing, just looked at from different angles. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... “In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exce…

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.

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

#126

Post by ensignavenger »

ensignavenger wrote: post #98
seany wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're ok with it when it goes to the ASF; which is not what's going on here.

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 inconsistent with its nonprofit status and bylaws in effect at the time of the Contribution."

Based on the Element blog-post as well as comments they have made here... I doubt they plan to keep that clause in place.

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

#127

Post by rrix2 »

Arathorn wrote: post #119
rrix2 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> huge companies who bear no cost for supporting the Matrix ecosystem whatsoever discover they can sell proprietary forks for many $ What, exactly, are you talking about here, Matthew?

Well, I’m not going to name & shame them given we’re trying to sort out alternative licensing so they can continue their forks…

eventually we're not going to be able to continue this "just trust me, it's cool" line, man, this stinks.

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

#128

Post by benatkin »

exabrial wrote: post #64

I 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 release changes to the code files, and shipped it with some MPL code. It says that where the license conflicts, the compatible license prevails. I'm also not convinced that the Distribution section behaves like the AGPL: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/a/12298

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

#129

Post by pgeorgi »

progval wrote: post #106
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…

> This makes it clear that they intent to ship under some alternative license, for a fee They already did, as the Apache License allows them to.

The difference is that so far, everybody was allowed to do that. With that change, only they can do that (with new code going forward). And ask developers to jump through hoops for the privilege.

That _might_ be the best option for Synapse etc, but it should be clear what they're offering.

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

#130

Post by saagarjha »

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #114
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…

What are your thoughts on Stallman explicitly saying that selling exceptions is fine [1]? [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

Stallman’s point (which I largely think is a cop out, fwiw) is that the goal should be that the software remains free, and that making small compromises to further that goal is ok. Repositioning your software to be nominally free but actually picking a license that maximizes the chance that people pay you for a proprietary version goes against this spirit, because it’s clear that you don’t actually have software freedom as your priority.
Post reply on HN