3 ms·

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.)
  - blendergeek 5y ago
    This is definitely an "open core" business model and you were right to call it what it is. While right now, the "core" is still fairly large and the proprietary addons are fairly small, it is not hard to see New Vector making more features proprietary additions.
  - Arathorn 5y ago
    This may be a matter of definitions, but I really don't think that it's correct to describe this as open core. First of all, Matrix itself is a non-profit foundation, and absolutely everything it does is FOSS, and accepts contributions from everywhere. The majority come from Element (formerly New Vector) though, the for-profit that the original Matrix team set up in order to work on Matrix full time. Element has always had some closed-source bits in addition to all the FOSS work we do for Matrix. For instance, the EMS hosting platform itself (lots of stripe + kubernetes) is all proprietary and always has been. The default integration manager (codenamed Scalar) is too. And occasionally we've built random apps and bots and bridges which we chose to keep closed source - e.g. we've had a closed-source Sametime bridge for ages, and we have closed-source border gateways, cross-domain controllers, audit bots, etc too. However, *this doesn't make Matrix open core*, any more than the existence of closed-source webapps makes the Web "open core". It also doesn't make Element "open core", any more than (say) Mozilla is "open core" just because they haven't released the source for some of the random services they run too. In an ideal world, Element would release all of its IP as FOSS - and it's quite possible that we'll do that in future. But right now we're still experimenting with the right balance.

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.)
- blendergeek 5y ago
  This is definitely an "open core" business model and you were right to call it what it is. While right now, the "core" is still fairly large and the proprietary addons are fairly small, it is not hard to see New Vector making more features proprietary additions.
- Arathorn 5y ago
  This may be a matter of definitions, but I really don't think that it's correct to describe this as open core. First of all, Matrix itself is a non-profit foundation, and absolutely everything it does is FOSS, and accepts contributions from everywhere. The majority come from Element (formerly New Vector) though, the for-profit that the original Matrix team set up in order to work on Matrix full time. Element has always had some closed-source bits in addition to all the FOSS work we do for Matrix. For instance, the EMS hosting platform itself (lots of stripe + kubernetes) is all proprietary and always has been. The default integration manager (codenamed Scalar) is too. And occasionally we've built random apps and bots and bridges which we chose to keep closed source - e.g. we've had a closed-source Sametime bridge for ages, and we have closed-source border gateways, cross-domain controllers, audit bots, etc too. However, *this doesn't make Matrix open core*, any more than the existence of closed-source webapps makes the Web "open core". It also doesn't make Element "open core", any more than (say) Mozilla is "open core" just because they haven't released the source for some of the random services they run too. In an ideal world, Element would release all of its IP as FOSS - and it's quite possible that we'll do that in future. But right now we're still experimenting with the right balance.