5 ms·

I would define it more as Source Open than Open Source. Their Source is under Afero License but they only use the Acronym followed by a printout of the Apache L

by _up 10y ago

I would define it more as Source Open than Open Source. Their Source is under Afero License but they only use the Acronym followed by a printout of the Apache License trying to trick people into thinkink it's Apache. And their binary MIT License has the addition that you aren't allowed to hide modify any Product or Trademark indentifications. That contradicts the MIT License!

hlieberman 10y ago
Admittedly, their licensing scheme is a bit strange, but it's very clearly F/OSS. Even in the most restrictive case, it's still the AGPL with additional exemptions.
- tzs 10y ago
  I'm not sure that the portion under AGPL actually has exemptions. They say in their LICENSE.txt file: We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application (a) does not link to the Mattermost Platform directly, but exclusively uses the Mattermost Admin Tools and Configuration Files, and (b) you have not modified, added to or adapted the source code of Mattermost in a way that results in the creation of a “modified version” or “work based on” Mattermost as these terms are defined in the AGPL v3.0 license. Note that the two conditions necessary to receive the exemption are connected by "and", not "or". The second condition is that you not create a modified work or a work based upon the program as defined in AGPL v3.0. But by the terms of AGPL itself its copyleft provisions are only applicable to modified versions, so it doesn't appear that there are any circumstances where Mattermost's exemption will actually exempt you from anything.
anc84 10y ago
As a free software lover for me Affero GPL > Apache License for web-hosted tools any day!
- _up 10y ago
  Then why do they need to trick users/devs into thinking it is Apache?
  - giancarlostoro 10y ago
    One license makes networking applications sources available if modified, the other doesn't as far as I'm aware. Not sure why it has 3 "licenses" they really should figure that out. I think they should just say they're AGPL if anything and make any exception a paid license that turns Mattermost into MIT or Apache license or something? But having two licenses is fine, or one license and exemptions, but three and an exemption that doesn't really make sense... Sheesh.
it33 10y ago
Mattermost team here, Highly appreciate your feedback. Our intention is that 99% of people use Mattermost Team Edition under MIT. You're right about that trademark section under MIT, that is weird, we'll remove it in the next release. For the 1% of people who want to modify the core /platform, we're just asking they share back to the community. Here's a summary of our licensing and philosophy: https://www.mattermost.org/licensing/ https://www.mattermost.org/licensing/

by _up 10y ago

hlieberman 10y ago

Admittedly, their licensing scheme is a bit strange, but it's very clearly F/OSS. Even in the most restrictive case, it's still the AGPL with additional exemptions.

tzs 10y ago
I'm not sure that the portion under AGPL actually has exemptions. They say in their LICENSE.txt file: We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application (a) does not link to the Mattermost Platform directly, but exclusively uses the Mattermost Admin Tools and Configuration Files, and (b) you have not modified, added to or adapted the source code of Mattermost in a way that results in the creation of a “modified version” or “work based on” Mattermost as these terms are defined in the AGPL v3.0 license. Note that the two conditions necessary to receive the exemption are connected by "and", not "or". The second condition is that you not create a modified work or a work based upon the program as defined in AGPL v3.0. But by the terms of AGPL itself its copyleft provisions are only applicable to modified versions, so it doesn't appear that there are any circumstances where Mattermost's exemption will actually exempt you from anything.

anc84 10y ago

As a free software lover for me Affero GPL > Apache License for web-hosted tools any day!

_up 10y ago
Then why do they need to trick users/devs into thinking it is Apache?
- giancarlostoro 10y ago
  One license makes networking applications sources available if modified, the other doesn't as far as I'm aware. Not sure why it has 3 "licenses" they really should figure that out. I think they should just say they're AGPL if anything and make any exception a paid license that turns Mattermost into MIT or Apache license or something? But having two licenses is fine, or one license and exemptions, but three and an exemption that doesn't really make sense... Sheesh.

it33 10y ago

Mattermost team here, Highly appreciate your feedback. Our intention is that 99% of people use Mattermost Team Edition under MIT. You're right about that trademark section under MIT, that is weird, we'll remove it in the next release. For the 1% of people who want to modify the core /platform, we're just asking they share back to the community. Here's a summary of our licensing and philosophy: https://www.mattermost.org/licensing/ https://www.mattermost.org/licensing/