5 ms·

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

by tpush 3y ago

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
        I think there are a few helpful things in that regard: - There are already viable and deployed alternatives to Synapse, including Conduit. Making changes that would break compatibility would fragment the network. - There are already viable and widely-used alternatives to Element on the client side. I myself mostly use Nheko these days. - The structure of the Matrix protocol is such that breaks in compatibility would look very weird to users, so I think they're incentivized to avoid making such changes for their user experience's sake. - The primary selling point of Matrix (and thus Element) over other systems is precisely that it's an open protocol for communications. It seems unlikely (though not impossible) that they would do anything to harm that, but if they did, it would not look good for the company. Speaking personally, I would start looking for alternatives if they did.
      - progval 3y ago
        > 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? If I understand the confirmation statements at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10873661/filing-history https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c... , M & A already have way under the majority of votes in Element, and nothing catastrophic happened
      - Arathorn 3y ago
        If Element explodes by whatever mechanism, other folks can fork the AGPL code to keep it going. We’re looking into mechanisms to ensure CLA’d code stays published under an OSI compatible license regardless of the type of explosion, which I guess is a kind of dead man’s switch.
    - ensignavenger 3y ago
      I thought Element was founded after the Matrix Foundation, and thus Element has been using the Foundations code all along? Yes, they have continued to voluntarily contribute to the Foundation, knowing that it was in their own best interests to grow the Matrix community.
      - Arathorn 3y ago
        No, the rough timeline is this: * 2014: Matrix core team creates Matrix, writes Synapse and other implementations, starts writing the Matrix spec * 2017: Matrix core team wants to be able to focus on this exclusively as their dayjob; creates New Vector (aka Element) to fund their work. * 2018: Matrix core team establishes the Foundation as a neutral custodian of the standard on behalf of everyone in the ecosystem. Element transfers all its core Matrix IP to the Foundation, and (uniquely) continues to donate its future contributions to the Foundation, hoping that by letting the whole ecosystem build on top, including proprietary forks, Matrix will spread as far and wide as possible to the benefit of everyone, and Element will make enough $ selling Matrix hosting/distributions to keep hiring the core team to work on Matrix. * 2022: Matrix has spread far and wide, but turns out that in the commercial space, huge companies who bear no cost for supporting the Matrix ecosystem whatsoever discover they can sell proprietary forks for many $. Meanwhile, Element spends its life funnelling most of its time & energy into doing core Matrix ecosystem work, and it turns out that trying to compete with the big guys while all your energy is going into the commons doesn't work. * 2023: Element decides it can't afford to contribute as Apache any more, and switches to AGPL + CLA, thus requiring the big guys to either opensource their proprietary forks as AGPL or arrange a paid license from Element. Yes, this means that contributors to Synapse will need to sign a CLA to Element, and it's depressing if this hinders community contributions, but it's the least worst solution we can see.
        rrix2 3y ago
        > huge companies who bear no cost for supporting the Matrix ecosystem whatsoever discover they can sell proprietary forks for many $ What, exactly, are you talking about here, Matthew?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    I would fully agree if your contribution were 50%, or even 10% of the code base. But if your contribution makes up 0.001% of the code base, and theirs makes up 95%, I think there is a much bigger fundamental asymmetry already at play that changes the fairness math a bit.
- ensignavenger 3y ago
  Yet I don't get to sell it (edit to clarify: under a proprietary license, like Element corp) in order to pay for my contributions, or for my own employees contributions? So you are saying you don't trust the Matrix community, present or future? Plenty of companies survive without CLAs and pay folks to work on open source. I appreciate the business interests, but there are better ways to manage open source projects than CLAs.
  - dbrgn 3y ago
    Even with a CLA in place, you can still fork, improve and sell Synapse / Dendrite (or derivatives of it), as long as you follow the AGPL.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      With the CLA in place, there is no one true Synapse/Dendrite. There is the Element-provided AGPL version, and then there are X many private forks. The very existence of those forks breaks the community's ability to truly collaborate. Private forks still participate in our ecosystem!
      - Yoric 3y ago
        Isn't that already the case without a CLA?
        thomastjeffery 3y ago
        With the previous licensing, yes. The change to AGPL would have ended the ability to make proprietary forks, but that ability was preserved by the CLA instead. This means that the only effective result of switching to the AGPL is that Element can demand money from anyone who makes a proprietary fork. Basically, the AGPL has been backdoored for profit.
        Yoric 3y ago
        Well, paying the bills when you're a company whose primary project is open-source remains an open problem.
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  The subject of this discussion is collaboration. You want to benefit from that collaboration without providing collaborators an equal opportunity. By instituting a CLA, you have disincentivized collaboration. I understand you have determined this to be a good compromise for you and the developers you pay to work on Element. That doesn't make this situation any less bad to the rest of the community. So that begs the question: will having a stronger source of revenue for your team be worth alienating 3rd-party contributions? No matter the answer, I think its totally reasonable for those contributors to complain about the situation you have placed them in.
  - camgunz 3y ago
    > That doesn't make this situation any less bad to the rest of the community. How is the community suffering here? Let's say Element adds a bunch of baller stuff to their versions over the next few months and then closes the source. Can't the community just fork the last AGPL version? You might say, "well then no one can take the AGPL fork and make their own closed-source business", but do you want them to? Even if you do, they still can with the existing Apache-licensed version, just like Element is doing right now. You're arguing that Element will lose a lot of contributions, but TFA points out that despite being super open, the vast majority of contributions are still made by Element employees (which seems to be true [0]). It's not the case that Element is looking to monetize the (small) contributions of others, it is the case that others are looking to monetize the (huge) contributions of Element. And besides, aren't the MSCs the core of Matrix? It's already super possible to build your own compliant client and server. The situation is that Element needs money to keep developing the ecosystem. It would be cool if there were a big network of donors and contributions, but there isn't. You're essentially saying, "that's fine, go out of business then, and the community will keep developing the ecosystem", but that's not happening now, and it can still happen anyway with the Apache-licensed versions, which again people can still contribute to. [0]: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/graphs/contributors https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/graphs/contributors
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      It hurts the community by promoting proprietary forks. If Element adds a bunch of baller stuff to their version, then that is the best case scenario. On the other hand, if Apple or Microsoft or Google add some really baller stuff, then Element's version has to compete by blindly reproducing that work. Even worse, if Apple or Microsoft or Google add some mediocre feature, but use that feature to make their users incompatible with Element's version, then Element will have to compete by blindly reproducing a feature that no one actually wants! --- And why should any of us expect the best case scenario? Corporations are paying to monopolize this work. Why would you pay to monopolize something, then never use that monopoly to be anti-competitive? That would be fiscally irresponsible!

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

by tpush 3y ago

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

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
      I think there are a few helpful things in that regard: - There are already viable and deployed alternatives to Synapse, including Conduit. Making changes that would break compatibility would fragment the network. - There are already viable and widely-used alternatives to Element on the client side. I myself mostly use Nheko these days. - The structure of the Matrix protocol is such that breaks in compatibility would look very weird to users, so I think they're incentivized to avoid making such changes for their user experience's sake. - The primary selling point of Matrix (and thus Element) over other systems is precisely that it's an open protocol for communications. It seems unlikely (though not impossible) that they would do anything to harm that, but if they did, it would not look good for the company. Speaking personally, I would start looking for alternatives if they did.
    - progval 3y ago
      > 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? If I understand the confirmation statements at https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/10873661/filing-history https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c... , M & A already have way under the majority of votes in Element, and nothing catastrophic happened
    - Arathorn 3y ago
      If Element explodes by whatever mechanism, other folks can fork the AGPL code to keep it going. We’re looking into mechanisms to ensure CLA’d code stays published under an OSI compatible license regardless of the type of explosion, which I guess is a kind of dead man’s switch.
  - ensignavenger 3y ago
    I thought Element was founded after the Matrix Foundation, and thus Element has been using the Foundations code all along? Yes, they have continued to voluntarily contribute to the Foundation, knowing that it was in their own best interests to grow the Matrix community.
    - Arathorn 3y ago
      No, the rough timeline is this: * 2014: Matrix core team creates Matrix, writes Synapse and other implementations, starts writing the Matrix spec * 2017: Matrix core team wants to be able to focus on this exclusively as their dayjob; creates New Vector (aka Element) to fund their work. * 2018: Matrix core team establishes the Foundation as a neutral custodian of the standard on behalf of everyone in the ecosystem. Element transfers all its core Matrix IP to the Foundation, and (uniquely) continues to donate its future contributions to the Foundation, hoping that by letting the whole ecosystem build on top, including proprietary forks, Matrix will spread as far and wide as possible to the benefit of everyone, and Element will make enough $ selling Matrix hosting/distributions to keep hiring the core team to work on Matrix. * 2022: Matrix has spread far and wide, but turns out that in the commercial space, huge companies who bear no cost for supporting the Matrix ecosystem whatsoever discover they can sell proprietary forks for many $. Meanwhile, Element spends its life funnelling most of its time & energy into doing core Matrix ecosystem work, and it turns out that trying to compete with the big guys while all your energy is going into the commons doesn't work. * 2023: Element decides it can't afford to contribute as Apache any more, and switches to AGPL + CLA, thus requiring the big guys to either opensource their proprietary forks as AGPL or arrange a paid license from Element. Yes, this means that contributors to Synapse will need to sign a CLA to Element, and it's depressing if this hinders community contributions, but it's the least worst solution we can see.
      - rrix2 3y ago
        > huge companies who bear no cost for supporting the Matrix ecosystem whatsoever discover they can sell proprietary forks for many $ What, exactly, are you talking about here, Matthew?
- freedomben 3y ago
  I would fully agree if your contribution were 50%, or even 10% of the code base. But if your contribution makes up 0.001% of the code base, and theirs makes up 95%, I think there is a much bigger fundamental asymmetry already at play that changes the fairness math a bit.
ensignavenger 3y ago
Yet I don't get to sell it (edit to clarify: under a proprietary license, like Element corp) in order to pay for my contributions, or for my own employees contributions? So you are saying you don't trust the Matrix community, present or future? Plenty of companies survive without CLAs and pay folks to work on open source. I appreciate the business interests, but there are better ways to manage open source projects than CLAs.
- dbrgn 3y ago
  Even with a CLA in place, you can still fork, improve and sell Synapse / Dendrite (or derivatives of it), as long as you follow the AGPL.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    With the CLA in place, there is no one true Synapse/Dendrite. There is the Element-provided AGPL version, and then there are X many private forks. The very existence of those forks breaks the community's ability to truly collaborate. Private forks still participate in our ecosystem!
    - Yoric 3y ago
      Isn't that already the case without a CLA?
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        With the previous licensing, yes. The change to AGPL would have ended the ability to make proprietary forks, but that ability was preserved by the CLA instead. This means that the only effective result of switching to the AGPL is that Element can demand money from anyone who makes a proprietary fork. Basically, the AGPL has been backdoored for profit.
        Yoric 3y ago
        Well, paying the bills when you're a company whose primary project is open-source remains an open problem.
thomastjeffery 3y ago
The subject of this discussion is collaboration. You want to benefit from that collaboration without providing collaborators an equal opportunity. By instituting a CLA, you have disincentivized collaboration. I understand you have determined this to be a good compromise for you and the developers you pay to work on Element. That doesn't make this situation any less bad to the rest of the community. So that begs the question: will having a stronger source of revenue for your team be worth alienating 3rd-party contributions? No matter the answer, I think its totally reasonable for those contributors to complain about the situation you have placed them in.
- camgunz 3y ago
  > That doesn't make this situation any less bad to the rest of the community. How is the community suffering here? Let's say Element adds a bunch of baller stuff to their versions over the next few months and then closes the source. Can't the community just fork the last AGPL version? You might say, "well then no one can take the AGPL fork and make their own closed-source business", but do you want them to? Even if you do, they still can with the existing Apache-licensed version, just like Element is doing right now. You're arguing that Element will lose a lot of contributions, but TFA points out that despite being super open, the vast majority of contributions are still made by Element employees (which seems to be true [0]). It's not the case that Element is looking to monetize the (small) contributions of others, it is the case that others are looking to monetize the (huge) contributions of Element. And besides, aren't the MSCs the core of Matrix? It's already super possible to build your own compliant client and server. The situation is that Element needs money to keep developing the ecosystem. It would be cool if there were a big network of donors and contributions, but there isn't. You're essentially saying, "that's fine, go out of business then, and the community will keep developing the ecosystem", but that's not happening now, and it can still happen anyway with the Apache-licensed versions, which again people can still contribute to. [0]: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/graphs/contributors https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/graphs/contributors
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    It hurts the community by promoting proprietary forks. If Element adds a bunch of baller stuff to their version, then that is the best case scenario. On the other hand, if Apple or Microsoft or Google add some really baller stuff, then Element's version has to compete by blindly reproducing that work. Even worse, if Apple or Microsoft or Google add some mediocre feature, but use that feature to make their users incompatible with Element's version, then Element will have to compete by blindly reproducing a feature that no one actually wants! --- And why should any of us expect the best case scenario? Corporations are paying to monopolize this work. Why would you pay to monopolize something, then never use that monopoly to be anti-competitive? That would be fiscally irresponsible!