4 ms·
This is an interesting point and does sound good in theory, although in practice it's just the for-profit proprietary companies who are doing the forking and ex
by freedomben 3y ago
This is an interesting point and does sound good in theory, although in practice it's just the for-profit proprietary companies who are doing the forking and expanding, and then making a ton of money and not contributing anything back to the reference implementation.
I do also dislike the CLA, but I'm torn because if anybody should be making the money from these custom extensions/implementations, it should be the company who does 95% of the core contributions, and I don't see a way to do that without the CLA. Not that my opinion matters as I'm not connected at all to Element or any other players, but just generally speaking I'd love to hear potential solutions to the problem that don't require a CLA
- ensignavenger 3y agoI haven't analysed this myself, but the Matrix Foundation website just minutes ago still gives a strong impression otherwise.
- Arathorn 3y agofwiw, the main problem with the CLA seems to be that folks have assumed the intention is to use it to switch Synapse & co to a closed license in future - which I honestly hadn’t even considered as a possibility. For one thing, we could have done that already under the Apache license; instead, we deliberately did the opposite - to move to AGPL. The reason for the CLA is purely to allow us to sell AGPL exceptions to commercial forks.