3 ms·

So does this pretty much boil down to "we are re-licensing Synapse and Dendrite from Apache to AGPL"? In what way is the "owner" of the code significant, in th

So does this pretty much boil down to "we are re-licensing Synapse and Dendrite from Apache to AGPL"? In what way is the "owner" of the code significant, in this case, other than being a proxy for the maintainer of the most popular fork? These projects are open source, so the only thing this code is really attached to is the license. Whatever entity controls the majority of developer effort effectively controls the future of the project. So far, that entity has been Element, and the features being worked on in the client and server applications have been and will be influenced by the customers of Element and the sponsors of the Foundation (for an example of this influence, see the biometric/PIN lock introduced in the Element X mobile applications).

freedomben 3y ago
> Whatever entity controls the majority of developer effort effectively controls the future of the project. Yes, but that doesn't preclude others from stepping up with developer effort on the originals, should they want to. Given the widespread use of matrix, this does seem like a possibility.
runiq 3y ago
The point of contention here is not really the license change, but the CLA attached to it. Basically, if you write code for Synapse/Dendrite, submit it to the project, and sign the CLA, the (for-profit) Element Foundation may relicense your code under a proprietary license. It's intended to keep contributions from proprietary clients coming without them fleeing the ship because they see the four letter word AGPL.