31–40 of 162 posts
You should read the license, it seems somewhat insane to be honest: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...
Looks pretty logical to me... It is AGPL 3.0, except they give you slightly more rights with a promise not to enforce certain provisions in certain circumstances.
You should read the license, it seems somewhat insane to be honest: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...
What do you think about it sounds insane?
The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact, but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also extremely strange.
To me, this seems kinda reasonable. The reality is licenses are all nonsense and none of it makes any sense. There could be secret patents nobody knows about. That precise wording written by American lawyers might not hold up in Chinese courts. There might be two compatible licenses, but one is 20x the length of the other; obviously some legal expert thought those extra words were needed - but are they? What's going…
> But nobody will get sued, and that's the only thing that matters. Do you really want to bet your business on that? Vizio thought the same when using GPL code, and now they are in court. Software Freedom Conservancy sues Vizio for GPL violations - https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-s...
Open source is notorious for being implemented in $$$ COTS and commerce and then contributing $0 in money and then even less in contribs bug fixes or sharing in house tweaks,isn’t this what Wordpress has been melting down over for a year or two now?
And I’m sure many more projects are pissed off or resenting their chains but not making an ugly scene about it.
Something has to give here.
I don’t have a dog in this fight other than to say that what mattermost went with here “is a choice” , and I have “a choice” whether to accept these terms.
I’m interested in watching how it plays out though. They cast their die. Problems have solutions. We could all get into whether this solution is viable or not — doesn’t matter this is what they went with and they made it clear they’re not taking user input on it. I’m not even a user so I expect them to care even less about my thoughts.
Im supportive of anyone trying to find an equitable balance but maybe that’s a situation where they could roll their own license with these clauses and exclusions.
Its not like Microsoft or iTunes user agreements aren’t complete bullshit, yet people click okay and use all that.
The license seems perfectly clear in that it's multiply-licensed under AGPL, MIT, and corporate licensing based on different use cases. Maybe this guy has reading comprehension issues, but more likely he's just unhappy with the corporate part and wants to stir drama.
The license seems perfectly clear in that it's multiply-licensed under AGPL, MIT, and corporate licensing based on different use cases. Maybe this guy has reading comprehension issues, but more likely he's just unhappy with the corporate part and wants to stir drama.
> ... licensed to use source code to create compiled versions ...
Why's it calling out compiling specifically? Are they trying to imply you can't modify/distribute/etc the source? Presumably that would be a "further restriction" per the AGPL and hence ignorable, but it's sloppy at best and misleading at worse, which isn't great for a license document...
I'm already shutting down my private instance of Mattermost, no thank you. I'm thinking of Zulip, at least they aren't pulling this shenanigans.
Isn't this by default unlicensed then? I would avoid it anyway. Absolutely no need for that risk.
The license seems perfectly clear in that it's multiply-licensed under AGPL, MIT, and corporate licensing based on different use cases. Maybe this guy has reading comprehension issues, but more likely he's just unhappy with the corporate part and wants to stir drama.
They could simply say that, then, instead of saying you might be able to use it under the AGPL.
To me, this seems kinda reasonable. The reality is licenses are all nonsense and none of it makes any sense. There could be secret patents nobody knows about. That precise wording written by American lawyers might not hold up in Chinese courts. There might be two compatible licenses, but one is 20x the length of the other; obviously some legal expert thought those extra words were needed - but are they? What's going…
> But nobody will get sued, and that's the only thing that matters. Do you really want to bet your business on that? Vizio thought the same when using GPL code, and now they are in court. Software Freedom Conservancy sues Vizio for GPL violations - https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-s...
Isn't this by default unlicensed then? I would avoid it anyway. Absolutely no need for that risk.
It used to be like that, yes. If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain. Those times are long gone though.
I don't think this has ever been the case. If a license is not mentioned, it is always "All rights reserved" by the authors of the project, by the Berne convention (1886).