5 ms·

No > The bridge itself is not going to drop into the open-source Matrix code any time soon. Hodgson explained: "This is an entirely new bridge that we've built

No > The bridge itself is not going to drop into the open-source Matrix code any time soon. Hodgson explained: "This is an entirely new bridge that we've built as Element exclusively for Element Matrix Services, which is the SaaS hosting platform we provide in order to keep the lights on for Matrix development and for Element in general. > "We are taking the position that people who are rich enough to buy into Team's ecosystem and throw lots of money to Microsoft might as well throw a little bit of money to Element to keep funding Matrix development."

ssivark 5y ago
Can’t fault them for it, but it does feel a touch petty — falling below the high standard that Matrix has implicitly led us to expect.
- baby 5y ago
  How so?
  - ssivark 5y ago
    Why not open source this bridge too, like everything else in the Matrix ecosystem?
    - baby 5y ago
      What good would that do?
      - blendergeek 5y ago
        It would remind the community that Freedom(R) is very important. I think the least they could do is release it under the AGPLv3. That license is accepted by the Free Software community while being universally rejected by business as toxic and dangerous. No business will pick up the bridge and use it, while Free Software people can still use it for their own purposes (whatever those might be).
        mannerheim 5y ago
        It's a bridge to a proprietary service. Free software adherents don't have MS Teams subscriptions, and those with MS Teams subscriptions aren't going to care about the bridge being proprietary.
        e3bc54b2 5y ago
        There are people who might have to use Teams due to network effect, but prefer to keep closed source crap off their machines. Such people like myself might use Reddit (closed source for some time now), but use open source app like Slide or plain old Firefox. For such people, an open source element bridge to teams is best of both worlds.
        ssivark 5y ago
        It’s a matter of principle, more than anything else.
tabbott 5y ago
Interesting, I hadn't appreciated that Matrix was switching from fully open source to an open core model.
- thekyle 5y ago
  I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say this is an open core model. This is more like someone developing a proprietary WordPress plug-in, but WordPress itself is completely FOSS.
  - e3bc54b2 5y ago
    Similar to how vscode is open source but all the important extensions (remote dev, CPP, Python,new Python LSP) are all closed source? I would call that open core.
- ntw1103 5y ago
  I didn't really think about it like that, though i guess accurate. Matrix, the spec is open, and synapse the server is open. anyone can make a bridge, they are pluggable, and the author can choose their license. I guess you could call Matrix+spec the core.
- vlmutolo 5y ago
  I think that's a mischaracterization of what's happening. Matrix the protocol is fully open source. Element the matrix client is fully open source. Synapse the matrix server is fully open source. Dendrite, the next generation matrix server, is fully open source. All of these are developed by the New Vector team. The only thing here that isn't open source is an external bridge to microsoft teams, a platform that itself is already closed source. In this case, "open core" would probably look like the Matrix team closing the Element client and Dendrite homeserver, and then extending them with closed matrix event types. Honestly, they could probably pull it off, but I doubt they want to go that route. They've been dedicated to federation since the beginning.
  - tabbott 5y ago
    Yeah, "Open core" doesn't have a great definition. Certainly I agree this is a pretty contained feature, and I shouldn't have written "switching ... to an open core model" given the evidence in this thread. But "Element Matrix Services" (aka New Vector) launching and marketing a product/feature that is not open source is AFAIK something new, and it'd be very surprising if this is the last such feature they announce. (Before today, they were one of the very few examples I knew of a VC-funded open source company where their product remained entirely open source.)
zeta0134 5y ago
Oh man, what an unfortunate view. As a user, I wanted the freedom to set this thing up so I could have a teams client that doesn't use 100% of my CPU at idle, but of course I am an end user at my company. It doesn't matter how deep my personal pockets are, I'm not able to make a company-wide decision. It's impossible for me to pay them for this, even if I wanted to.
ldarby 5y ago
> "We are taking the position that people who are rich enough to buy into Team's ecosystem and throw lots of money to Microsoft might as well throw a little bit of money to Element to keep funding Matrix development." This is a mistake. If they're already paying for Teams, then what exactly is the incentive to "throw a little bit of money to Element"? They aleady have a communications tool (Teams), so a) why are they going to pay for another one, and b) people who already bought Teams most likely do not care about the values Matrix stands for.

ssivark 5y ago

Can’t fault them for it, but it does feel a touch petty — falling below the high standard that Matrix has implicitly led us to expect.

baby 5y ago
How so?
- ssivark 5y ago
  Why not open source this bridge too, like everything else in the Matrix ecosystem?
  - baby 5y ago
    What good would that do?
    - blendergeek 5y ago
      It would remind the community that Freedom(R) is very important. I think the least they could do is release it under the AGPLv3. That license is accepted by the Free Software community while being universally rejected by business as toxic and dangerous. No business will pick up the bridge and use it, while Free Software people can still use it for their own purposes (whatever those might be).
      - mannerheim 5y ago
        It's a bridge to a proprietary service. Free software adherents don't have MS Teams subscriptions, and those with MS Teams subscriptions aren't going to care about the bridge being proprietary.
        e3bc54b2 5y ago
        There are people who might have to use Teams due to network effect, but prefer to keep closed source crap off their machines. Such people like myself might use Reddit (closed source for some time now), but use open source app like Slide or plain old Firefox. For such people, an open source element bridge to teams is best of both worlds.
        ssivark 5y ago
        It’s a matter of principle, more than anything else.

tabbott 5y ago

Interesting, I hadn't appreciated that Matrix was switching from fully open source to an open core model.

thekyle 5y ago
I'm not sure if I would go so far as to say this is an open core model. This is more like someone developing a proprietary WordPress plug-in, but WordPress itself is completely FOSS.
- e3bc54b2 5y ago
  Similar to how vscode is open source but all the important extensions (remote dev, CPP, Python,new Python LSP) are all closed source? I would call that open core.
ntw1103 5y ago
I didn't really think about it like that, though i guess accurate. Matrix, the spec is open, and synapse the server is open. anyone can make a bridge, they are pluggable, and the author can choose their license. I guess you could call Matrix+spec the core.
vlmutolo 5y ago
I think that's a mischaracterization of what's happening. Matrix the protocol is fully open source. Element the matrix client is fully open source. Synapse the matrix server is fully open source. Dendrite, the next generation matrix server, is fully open source. All of these are developed by the New Vector team. The only thing here that isn't open source is an external bridge to microsoft teams, a platform that itself is already closed source. In this case, "open core" would probably look like the Matrix team closing the Element client and Dendrite homeserver, and then extending them with closed matrix event types. Honestly, they could probably pull it off, but I doubt they want to go that route. They've been dedicated to federation since the beginning.
- tabbott 5y ago
  Yeah, "Open core" doesn't have a great definition. Certainly I agree this is a pretty contained feature, and I shouldn't have written "switching ... to an open core model" given the evidence in this thread. But "Element Matrix Services" (aka New Vector) launching and marketing a product/feature that is not open source is AFAIK something new, and it'd be very surprising if this is the last such feature they announce. (Before today, they were one of the very few examples I knew of a VC-funded open source company where their product remained entirely open source.)

zeta0134 5y ago

Oh man, what an unfortunate view. As a user, I wanted the freedom to set this thing up so I could have a teams client that doesn't use 100% of my CPU at idle, but of course I am an end user at my company. It doesn't matter how deep my personal pockets are, I'm not able to make a company-wide decision. It's impossible for me to pay them for this, even if I wanted to.

ldarby 5y ago

> "We are taking the position that people who are rich enough to buy into Team's ecosystem and throw lots of money to Microsoft might as well throw a little bit of money to Element to keep funding Matrix development." This is a mistake. If they're already paying for Teams, then what exactly is the incentive to "throw a little bit of money to Element"? They aleady have a communications tool (Teams), so a) why are they going to pay for another one, and b) people who already bought Teams most likely do not care about the values Matrix stands for.