4 ms·

I think a key difference here is fully open and collaborative specs, with Apache-licensed reference implementations for server and client that they dogfood them

I think a key difference here is fully open and collaborative specs, with Apache-licensed reference implementations for server and client that they dogfood themselves. It's also getting federated. So protocol, tech and network can live on regardless of who's running the servers people are using or driving the development of implementations.

seemslegit 6y ago
Until one day the foundation decides federation is not in the best interest of the community, the standards and reference implementation start to reflect closely the interests of the leading player[s] with other implementations having to play catchup. It would have been a very cynical take if it wasn't business as usual in our industry.
- Arathorn 6y ago
  That would be like the W3C declaring that interoperable hypertext is not in the best interest of the Web community. Or the Linux Foundation declaring that the Linux being open source is not in the best interest of the community. It would be utterly sabotaging, and in the case of the Matrix Foundation, the Foundation is independently regulated by the UK Government as a Community Interest Company - and so anyone would be welcome to complain to the regulator (via https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies/about/complaints-procedure https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-re...) that the Foundation was breaking its charter, and the Directors would face fines and/or legal action. This is why Matrix is in a fundamentally different situation to Keybase, or Zoom, or pretty much any other communication project out there, and why we spent so much time (and money) setting it up properly as a non-profit Foundation.
- ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  your scenario really makes no sense to me, maybe you're not familiar with what Matrix is?

4 ms·

I think a key difference here is fully open and collaborative specs, with Apache-licensed reference implementations for server and client that they dogfood them

by Legogris 6y ago

seemslegit 6y ago
Until one day the foundation decides federation is not in the best interest of the community, the standards and reference implementation start to reflect closely the interests of the leading player[s] with other implementations having to play catchup. It would have been a very cynical take if it wasn't business as usual in our industry.
- Arathorn 6y ago
  That would be like the W3C declaring that interoperable hypertext is not in the best interest of the Web community. Or the Linux Foundation declaring that the Linux being open source is not in the best interest of the community. It would be utterly sabotaging, and in the case of the Matrix Foundation, the Foundation is independently regulated by the UK Government as a Community Interest Company - and so anyone would be welcome to complain to the regulator (via https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-regulator-of-community-interest-companies/about/complaints-procedure https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/office-of-the-re...) that the Foundation was breaking its charter, and the Directors would face fines and/or legal action. This is why Matrix is in a fundamentally different situation to Keybase, or Zoom, or pretty much any other communication project out there, and why we spent so much time (and money) setting it up properly as a non-profit Foundation.
- ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
  your scenario really makes no sense to me, maybe you're not familiar with what Matrix is?