5 ms·

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 f

by 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.

by tpush 3y ago

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.