4 ms·

Speaking as CEO at Element - I don't particularly like CLAs either from an ideological perspective. However, the only way that Element can retain the right to

Speaking as CEO at Element - I don't particularly like CLAs either from an ideological perspective. However, the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks is if it has the right to do so, which means requiring a CLA. Otherwise the license change would not solve the problem that it's trying to solve, i.e. to provide a way for proprietary forks to contribute back to Matrix development costs, without having to AGPL their forks. [edit: clarify that CLA != assigning code ownership]

thomastjeffery 3y ago
> the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks I have a very straightforward and reasonable solution for you: don't do that.
- camgunz 3y ago
  A better comment here would be a little more curious about why they're doing it (so they can run a business and fund future Matrix/Element development) or to maybe suggest some alternatives.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    They're allowed to say they don't like it and people shouldn't do x or y. I'm not sure why you believe that every comment needs to sealion in some way or another, or provide alternatives. People are allowed to dislike choices made by others and state that. And just that. "I'd have preferred you didn't" is a perfectly valid comment to make. They don't have to do what the comment is asking, you don't have to agree with it etc, but it is a valid comment.
    - camgunz 3y ago
      I didn't say it was invalid. I gave an example of how it could do better. I'm allowed to say I don't like their comment, to dislike it and state that. I even did better and gave them constructive criticism, walking the walk, which you are not doing for me.
- ryukafalz 3y ago
  My understanding is they're already doing it, and they're already allowed to under the previous license. The CLA is also my least favorite part of this change, but it is overall a shift towards copyleft vs. the previous permissive licensing. If this means the project can remain FOSS and the company can continue to work on it, that's a good thing in my book. If they ever relicensed to a proprietary license though I'd be calling for a fork.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    It's a great step, except that it effectively doesn't matter, because anyone interested in ignoring the copyleft mandate can afford to buy their way around it. The only effective purpose for a copyleft license here is to get paid for permissive license! I'm not against the Element devs getting paid, and I get that this is their best shot at that. I still won't count this as "a good thing in my book". The whole point of the [A]GPL is that the end user can access source code. Letting people buy their way out of copyleft effectivley nullifies that.
    - ryukafalz 3y ago
      > The whole point of the [A]GPL is that the end user can access source code. Letting people buy their way out of copyleft effectivley nullifies that. But previously, anyone who wanted to deny end users from accessing their modified version of the source code could do so, immediately and at no cost to themselves. This adds a barrier to doing so. I'm not saying it's the ideal situation. What I'm saying is that from the perspective of someone who wants to ensure that end users retain access to the source code (which describes me!) this seems to accomplish that goal better than the previous license.
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        Yes, that is an improvement, but that improvement ends at the boundary of proprietary forks that pay their way out of copyleft. Encouraging corporations to pollute the Matrix network with proprietary clients will surely introduce fragmentation to the overall ecosystem. This will only hurt end users. The other side of the coin is that Element will be in a stable position to pay its devs, which is great! Regardless of that, I'm not a fan of this strategy. Hopefully it will pan out well enough that proprietary forks fail to compete with Element's AGPL repo.
tpush 3y ago
So you're trying to monetize other's contributions without giving them the right in return.
- Arathorn 3y ago
  If folks want to keep their contributions on their own fork and not sign a CLA that's fine too. Yes, we're trying to monetise our code in order to pay folks to keep working on it.
  - tpush 3y ago
    Yes, I can choose not to contribute. But I'm not able to sell commercial licenses of your contributions. This fundemental asymmetry is incredibly unfortunate for a project whose stated mission is being a fundamental communication layer.
    - Arathorn 3y ago
      If it's any consolation, the fundamental asymmetry replaces a previous asymmetry that Element uniquely donated all of its core Matrix code, including ownership, to the Foundation. But yes, I wish that the economics balanced without a CLA. But they don't.
      - COGlory 3y ago
        I have high hopes for the future of Matrix in large part because of the Matrix Foundation. But what happens at Element when you and Amandine leave? What stops Element from being bought by a huge corporation that takes the whole thing proprietary and kills it? I'm sympathetic to the position that you find yourself in here (I have a standing recurring donation to the Matrix Foundation). But this seems substantially less secure of a future. I don't know if it would work from a legal perspective, but it'd be nice if there was some sort of dead-man's switch.
        ryukafalz 3y ago
WhyNotHugo 3y ago
> However, the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks is if it has the right to do so, which means requiring a CLA You wouldn't need a CLA if you didn't want to reserve the exclusive right to move from an open source model to an open core model. You wouldn't need a CLA if you didn't want the privilege to switch away from an open source licence at will. Yes, a CLA is the only solution to retaining the right to un-open-source the project. The problem is that you'd want to retain this right in the first place.
- Arathorn 3y ago
  We don’t want to un-open-source the project. We’re not trying to pull a hashicorp or set up to do so; we just want the option to dual license to sell AGPL exceptions.
  - lannisterstark 3y ago
    I've used element every day for a while now, it's fantastic software... The trouble is that I want to believe you, but I'm(and I imagine certain others) having a hard time doing so.
    - cvwright 3y ago
      Element has been giving us open source code under the most liberal license for something like 10 years. I think he’s earned a little benefit of the doubt.
      - lannisterstark 3y ago
        Well, sure, but so did Hashicorp with terraform for 9 years. Rather successfully mind you. Things and circumstances change.

thomastjeffery 3y ago

> the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks I have a very straightforward and reasonable solution for you: don't do that.

camgunz 3y ago
A better comment here would be a little more curious about why they're doing it (so they can run a business and fund future Matrix/Element development) or to maybe suggest some alternatives.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  They're allowed to say they don't like it and people shouldn't do x or y. I'm not sure why you believe that every comment needs to sealion in some way or another, or provide alternatives. People are allowed to dislike choices made by others and state that. And just that. "I'd have preferred you didn't" is a perfectly valid comment to make. They don't have to do what the comment is asking, you don't have to agree with it etc, but it is a valid comment.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    I didn't say it was invalid. I gave an example of how it could do better. I'm allowed to say I don't like their comment, to dislike it and state that. I even did better and gave them constructive criticism, walking the walk, which you are not doing for me.
ryukafalz 3y ago
My understanding is they're already doing it, and they're already allowed to under the previous license. The CLA is also my least favorite part of this change, but it is overall a shift towards copyleft vs. the previous permissive licensing. If this means the project can remain FOSS and the company can continue to work on it, that's a good thing in my book. If they ever relicensed to a proprietary license though I'd be calling for a fork.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  It's a great step, except that it effectively doesn't matter, because anyone interested in ignoring the copyleft mandate can afford to buy their way around it. The only effective purpose for a copyleft license here is to get paid for permissive license! I'm not against the Element devs getting paid, and I get that this is their best shot at that. I still won't count this as "a good thing in my book". The whole point of the [A]GPL is that the end user can access source code. Letting people buy their way out of copyleft effectivley nullifies that.
  - ryukafalz 3y ago
    > The whole point of the [A]GPL is that the end user can access source code. Letting people buy their way out of copyleft effectivley nullifies that. But previously, anyone who wanted to deny end users from accessing their modified version of the source code could do so, immediately and at no cost to themselves. This adds a barrier to doing so. I'm not saying it's the ideal situation. What I'm saying is that from the perspective of someone who wants to ensure that end users retain access to the source code (which describes me!) this seems to accomplish that goal better than the previous license.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      Yes, that is an improvement, but that improvement ends at the boundary of proprietary forks that pay their way out of copyleft. Encouraging corporations to pollute the Matrix network with proprietary clients will surely introduce fragmentation to the overall ecosystem. This will only hurt end users. The other side of the coin is that Element will be in a stable position to pay its devs, which is great! Regardless of that, I'm not a fan of this strategy. Hopefully it will pan out well enough that proprietary forks fail to compete with Element's AGPL repo.

tpush 3y ago

So you're trying to monetize other's contributions without giving them the right in return.

Arathorn 3y ago
If folks want to keep their contributions on their own fork and not sign a CLA that's fine too. Yes, we're trying to monetise our code in order to pay folks to keep working on it.
- tpush 3y ago
  Yes, I can choose not to contribute. But I'm not able to sell commercial licenses of your contributions. This fundemental asymmetry is incredibly unfortunate for a project whose stated mission is being a fundamental communication layer.
  - Arathorn 3y ago
    If it's any consolation, the fundamental asymmetry replaces a previous asymmetry that Element uniquely donated all of its core Matrix code, including ownership, to the Foundation. But yes, I wish that the economics balanced without a CLA. But they don't.
    - COGlory 3y ago
      I have high hopes for the future of Matrix in large part because of the Matrix Foundation. But what happens at Element when you and Amandine leave? What stops Element from being bought by a huge corporation that takes the whole thing proprietary and kills it? I'm sympathetic to the position that you find yourself in here (I have a standing recurring donation to the Matrix Foundation). But this seems substantially less secure of a future. I don't know if it would work from a legal perspective, but it'd be nice if there was some sort of dead-man's switch.
      - ryukafalz 3y ago

WhyNotHugo 3y ago

> However, the only way that Element can retain the right to provide alternative licenses to proprietary forks is if it has the right to do so, which means requiring a CLA You wouldn't need a CLA if you didn't want to reserve the exclusive right to move from an open source model to an open core model. You wouldn't need a CLA if you didn't want the privilege to switch away from an open source licence at will. Yes, a CLA is the only solution to retaining the right to un-open-source the project. The problem is that you'd want to retain this right in the first place.

Arathorn 3y ago
We don’t want to un-open-source the project. We’re not trying to pull a hashicorp or set up to do so; we just want the option to dual license to sell AGPL exceptions.
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  I've used element every day for a while now, it's fantastic software... The trouble is that I want to believe you, but I'm(and I imagine certain others) having a hard time doing so.
  - cvwright 3y ago
    Element has been giving us open source code under the most liberal license for something like 10 years. I think he’s earned a little benefit of the doubt.
    - lannisterstark 3y ago
      Well, sure, but so did Hashicorp with terraform for 9 years. Rather successfully mind you. Things and circumstances change.