8 ms·

So AGPL+CLA: > The benefit of switching to AGPLv3 is that it obliges downstream developers to contribute back to the core project - either by releasing their m

So AGPL+CLA: > The benefit of switching to AGPLv3 is that it obliges downstream developers to contribute back to the core project - either by releasing their modifications as open source for the benefit of the whole Matrix ecosystem, or by contacting Element for an alternative license. Future code contributors to Synapse will need to sign a contributor license agreement (CLA) This makes it clear that they intent to ship under some alternative license, for a fee. They’re making others sign an agreement to ensure that they have privilege to ship the project (or forks of it) under a proprietary license. I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. These are step that a organisation takes when they want to move to an open core model and screw over the community. What they are doing is a required step to pull the same stunt as terraform. It’s technically still open source today, but this consolidates them into a position to change this at will. Don’t be fooled by the tricky wording that makes this sound like a good thing. These folks are very unambiguously screwing over the community and making it sound otherwise. As usual, remember to never sign a CLA.

progval 3y ago
> This makes it clear that they intent to ship under some alternative license, for a fee They already did, as the Apache License allows them to.
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  The difference is that so far, everybody was allowed to do that. With that change, only they can do that (with new code going forward). And ask developers to jump through hoops for the privilege. That _might_ be the best option for Synapse etc, but it should be clear what they're offering.
dm319 3y ago
Isn't this the case for any GPL-like license? Anyone wanting to build commercial software based on GPL-licensed code has a choice - either publish the full source code, or try to negotiate a closed source license with the copyright holder.
emersion 3y ago
Related: https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html
abdullahkhalids 3y ago
What are your thoughts on Stallman explicitly saying that selling exceptions is fine [1]? [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html
- benatkin 3y ago
  > I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. Stallman's term is "free software", this said "open source". I use OSD to define it, so I consider it technically open source, but to me it's open source that isn't under an acceptable license.
  - ralmidani 3y ago
    Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same thing, just looked at from different angles. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... “In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.”
    - benatkin 3y ago
      Not to me it doesn't. When the thing is a movement in the software community, the perspective changes the essence of the thing.
      - ralmidani 3y ago
        You’re free to adopt whichever perspective you prefer. But Free Software is always Open Source. That’s an objective fact.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        The way around isn't true though, which you claimed when you wrote is essentially the same
mrob 3y ago
Are permissive licenses also "screwing over the community"? Those also allow third parties to use the code in proprietary software. What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this?
- fabrice_d 3y ago
  Yes using permissive license allows businesses to take unfair advantage of the work done by the community for their own profit without contributing anything, but it's explicit in the license terms. When you go with *GPL + CLA, it's more subtle: bad things can happen, but pinky promises are made that won't be the case. We've seen that movie before of course. As a community contributor, I may not want my contributions to be used to enrich a corporation that doesn't give back to the commons.
- LaGrange 3y ago
  Yes. That's why you shouldn't contribute to software on permissive licenses. > What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this? Without that, Element would have to either pay people their fair share, or _leave_. They're not a charity, they're not doing this "for us," they're just extracting free labor.
  - kragen 3y ago
    probably you should only sign the cla if they pay you enough
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      The easiest route towards that might be contract work or employment.
      - kragen 3y ago
        that'll depend on the preferences of the individual contributor; some might be perfectly content with a single lump-sum payment for signing the cla, but it's true that it might be difficult for the company to negotiate something so simple with other contributors
lrvick 3y ago
> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. If this was BSL I agree with you, but that is not the case. AGPL is about as open source as it gets. It is forced open source. I recommend AGPL to any of my clients open sourcing anything in a competitive environment these days. Free for the public, but greedy corpos that do not want to share changes and be part of the community are forced to pay to support the developers that are. This AGPL working as designed, and is certainly FLOSS.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  The AGPL is not the issue. The CLA is. It allows the project to change licenses at will, without going back to all contributors and asking for approval.
  - taway1237 3y ago
    Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. I mean I dislike CLAs personally, but I understand why they can be healthy for a project growth.
    - gtirloni 3y ago
      No, the issue is not that they are not open source. The issue is the risk to users/contributors. These two things are being conflated in this discussion. One thing is a CLA and copyright/license changes. The other is the license itself.
    - ekidd 3y ago
      > Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. The last time I saw a FSF CLA, it was part of a larger agreement that also imposed obligations on the FSF. In the long run, there may be risks to the FSF holding so many copyrights. But I don't think it clarifies matters to treat the FSF's CLAs the same as ones used by a "open core" VC funded startup.
    - gkbrk 3y ago
      Do you truly see no difference between assigning rights to your own code to a non-profit foundation dedicated to Free Software and assigning rights to your own code to a for-profit company? Especially when the for-profit company openly announces this assignment of rights is for the purpose of selling code you wrote to others without giving back to the authors. The FSF doesn't have a track record of asking for CLAs, and then selling your code to others under different licenses and pocketing the profits.
david_draco 3y ago
> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. If you sell someone a AGPLv3 licensed software, that is completely okay and FOSS. If that someone sells someone else a (maybe modified) AGPLv3 licensed software, that is completely okay and FOSS. Not only Matrix can resell Element for a fee, so can you! That is open source and freedom for you. The ability to change or dual-license has always been limited to special circumstances. That said, yeah, don't sign a CLA.
- dingnuts 3y ago
  No, the Affero GPL is not "FOSS". It is Open Source but it is NOT libre because of the additional requirements (forced upstream contributions even on unreleased modified versions of the upstream software) imposed on potential forks of the project. Affero GPL is the premier tool of "open source" corporations to confuse potential contributors into THINKING that the project is FOSS and in order to trick them into giving up their labor for free. Don't fall for it! If someone wants you to contribute to an AGPL project, you should ask: how much will you pay me for my labor? The AGPL is the single best example of the difference between Open Source and Libre software. The AGPL is so restrictive and grants so much power to the original rights holder that it is really a source available proprietary license. Stop giving your labor to for-profit companies for free! It screws all of us! HEY DOWNVOTERS SHOW ME WHERE I'M WRONG IN THE LICENSE I quit a job over this stance, because I won't contribute to this farce. But Element lovers downvote because they like being exploited and won't even comment to show me why I'm wrong about this
  - FireInsight 3y ago
    From the FSF: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. I don't understand how this corresponds with anything you are saying.
    - dingnuts 3y ago
Loic 3y ago
I way prefer them to do that than them to close their shop. They do all the development and then you have some big software development providers selling solutions for millions of € to government agencies and they get nothing out of it. That at some point they consider that a part should go back to them or if no money some code is fair.
josephcsible 3y ago
> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. I agree with most of your comment, but not that.
camgunz 3y ago
Much of your comment is speculation and unfounded accusations. > This makes it clear that they intent to ship under some alternative license, for a fee. It makes it clear they intend to ship under the AGPLv3. What's wrong with that? They can change the license at a later date? Just fork! > I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. This is bananas; the AGPLv3 is extremely open source. And again, nothing prevents contributors from forking the code if Element closes it. > What they are doing is a required step to pull the same stunt as terraform. Didn't this result in the creation of OpenTofu? I haven't kept up and don't really have an opinion, but a cursory examination shows that their GitHub project has a gazillion stars [0]. > These folks are very unambiguously screwing over the community and making it sound otherwise. They've contributed an enormous amount of work to try and move the state of the art in messaging forward in a way that respects users (being extremely open, implementing end-to-end encryption, embracing decentralization, etc). Your characterizations of them are super uncharitable. They owe you precisely nothing. [0]: https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu
- lannisterstark 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - camgunz 3y ago
    > the slightest criticism This thread is full of people being super negative about the Element team. It's definitely not "slight" criticism. > a lot of people come out of woodwork with the tried and true "they owe you nothing" line. Criticism is how we improve and I'm a fan, but there's a difference between constructive criticism (which would be something like, "it looks like you're trying to build a sustainable revenue stream to continue your work on Matrix/Element but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it, here's an alternative") and entitlement. Entitlement is demanding that Element essentially not run a business to fund Matrix/Element development. You might not think you're doing that, but what else could you be doing? - You can't think Element is getting special treatment; anyone could do what they're doing here. - You can't think this change could open the door to some entity buying a proprietary license and "causing problems" because that applies to the Apache version as well (you can close source an Apache 2.0 project). - You can't think Element would lock away community contributions; the community is free to fork Element's version if they do ever close the source. - You can't think they're tricking people into contributing to their versions and profiting unethically from them; they're being super upfront about this (they make you sign the CLA that makes this clear!) and anyone is free to continue contributing to the Apache-licensed versions. And again if you don't like either of those options, make your own fork! Or write your own server, the Matrix/Element people have erected a super open development and standards process (you're welcome!) Thus your only objection must be that Element is forcing people to pay if they want to run a closed-source version of their code. Another way to say that is you feel entitled to run a closed-source version of their code for free. You might say, "but Element's CLA gives them the ability to run a closed-source version of my code for free" which is true. The difference is they're giving you a choice, whereas you're demanding it from them. > A community is allowed to have certain expectations, champ. Please don't condescend, avoid snark, yadda.
jzb 3y ago
Never is a bit much. It really depends on the language in the CLA. Are you giving them the right to change the license, etc? Some CLAs (e.g. Apache’s) are not objectionable. Some are very objectionable.
- nabla9 3y ago
  Element uses standard Apache CLA.
sokoloff 3y ago
> As usual, remember to never sign a CLA. Never sign a CLA unless you want the recipient to have full rights to your code. I’ve signed the FSF CLA, precisely because I want them to have that higher level of rights to my contribution.
StopHammoTime 3y ago
Hard disagree with your sentiment here. The AGPL is what every company doing BSL stuff should have done. They will never deviate internally from their upstream repo, they have to keep it maintained to make it worthwhile. Yes, they can relicense contributions to paid customers but that’s the case anywhere. People need to make money and that’s okay. The problem is when the publicly facing code is relicensed and a person who has contributed effectively loses the rights to run their own code. This solves that problem as long as that person continues to be a good open source citizen. The AGPL rocks.
matheusmoreira 3y ago
Agreed. The difficulty of changing the license is proportional to how many copyright holders there are. To change Linux's license, everyone who ever contributed to it probably needs to agree in writing. In comparison, it is trivial for a single copyright holder to change the license, even the GPL. Anyone contributing should know the risk exists.
bruce511 3y ago
>> As usual, remember to never sign a CLA. I see this a lot. And I think I understand where you are coming from. But I guess I see things another way. My thinking is something like this. I'm using project x (for free). I fix something or whatever. I contribute it back because that's the social contract. It's my minor contribution, my paltry acknowledgement of the value you add to me. Do as you please with it. It's not a stick for me to wave later on. It's not a ticket for me into your boardroom. Here it is, it's my gift to you. I fully expect you to create a commercial product down the road. I acknowledge that you probably like eating as much as I do. I've no problem with that. I'm probably not the market for you, I'll likely never actually pay you, so here's my offering. If and when you make a commercial offering I'll have lots of options. You'll have lots of options. Worst case I'll make a fork, or move onto something else. You owe me nothing, I have received more than I gave. I wish you well. So sure, here's my CLA. I do this for you, not for me. -- I'm not saying that my attitude is more, or less, right than yours. If you don't want to sign a CLA, then don't. That's fine. I present merely an alternative viewpoint.
znpy 3y ago
> never sign a cla I generally agree, however a cla in this case might make sense: 1. Allow for dual licensing, helping make the project sustainable 2. Help with copyright assignment, keeping stuff free: it makes possible to switch to agpl v4 if it’ll ever come out. Point 2 is particularly important and is why linux will be forever stuck on gplv2
thiht 3y ago
> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. It’s literally AGPL. Do you believe a project must not be sustainable to be considered true open source?
xinayder 3y ago
> What they are doing is a required step to pull the same stunt as terraform. Except that Terraform never had a strict open source license like the AGPL, they had MPL which doesn't require you to distribute your changes with the same license as the project. I don't see this as hostile and I believe it's more targeted towards Beeper (created by the Mautrix bridge devs), who maintain a closed fork of Synapse and will eventually sell their services for other users. This way makes sure that the Beeper devs either contribute back to their upstream projects, or pay a fee to not have to contribute back.
- Arathorn 3y ago
  fwiw, it’s not targeted at Beeper, who support Matrix via the Foundation, and who I believe are happy to publish their synapse changes under the AGPL. It’s targeting companies and governments with many billions of dollars at their disposal who commercialise Matrix without contributing anything back at all.

progval 3y ago

> This makes it clear that they intent to ship under some alternative license, for a fee They already did, as the Apache License allows them to.

pgeorgi 3y ago
The difference is that so far, everybody was allowed to do that. With that change, only they can do that (with new code going forward). And ask developers to jump through hoops for the privilege. That _might_ be the best option for Synapse etc, but it should be clear what they're offering.

dm319 3y ago

Isn't this the case for any GPL-like license? Anyone wanting to build commercial software based on GPL-licensed code has a choice - either publish the full source code, or try to negotiate a closed source license with the copyright holder.

emersion 3y ago

Related: https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html https://drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Dont-sign-a-CLA-2.html

abdullahkhalids 3y ago

What are your thoughts on Stallman explicitly saying that selling exceptions is fine [1]? [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html

benatkin 3y ago
> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. Stallman's term is "free software", this said "open source". I use OSD to define it, so I consider it technically open source, but to me it's open source that isn't under an acceptable license.
- ralmidani 3y ago
  Free Software and Open Source are essentially the same thing, just looked at from different angles. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... “In practice, open source stands for criteria a little looser than those of free software. As far as we know, all existing released free software source code would qualify as open source. Nearly all open source software is free software, but there are exceptions.”
  - benatkin 3y ago
    Not to me it doesn't. When the thing is a movement in the software community, the perspective changes the essence of the thing.
    - ralmidani 3y ago
      You’re free to adopt whichever perspective you prefer. But Free Software is always Open Source. That’s an objective fact.
      - tcfhgj 3y ago
        The way around isn't true though, which you claimed when you wrote is essentially the same

mrob 3y ago

Are permissive licenses also "screwing over the community"? Those also allow third parties to use the code in proprietary software. What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this?

fabrice_d 3y ago
Yes using permissive license allows businesses to take unfair advantage of the work done by the community for their own profit without contributing anything, but it's explicit in the license terms. When you go with *GPL + CLA, it's more subtle: bad things can happen, but pinky promises are made that won't be the case. We've seen that movie before of course. As a community contributor, I may not want my contributions to be used to enrich a corporation that doesn't give back to the commons.
LaGrange 3y ago
Yes. That's why you shouldn't contribute to software on permissive licenses. > What difference does it make to the community if Element gets paid for this? Without that, Element would have to either pay people their fair share, or _leave_. They're not a charity, they're not doing this "for us," they're just extracting free labor.
- kragen 3y ago
  probably you should only sign the cla if they pay you enough
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    The easiest route towards that might be contract work or employment.
    - kragen 3y ago
      that'll depend on the preferences of the individual contributor; some might be perfectly content with a single lump-sum payment for signing the cla, but it's true that it might be difficult for the company to negotiate something so simple with other contributors

lrvick 3y ago

> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. If this was BSL I agree with you, but that is not the case. AGPL is about as open source as it gets. It is forced open source. I recommend AGPL to any of my clients open sourcing anything in a competitive environment these days. Free for the public, but greedy corpos that do not want to share changes and be part of the community are forced to pay to support the developers that are. This AGPL working as designed, and is certainly FLOSS.

gtirloni 3y ago
The AGPL is not the issue. The CLA is. It allows the project to change licenses at will, without going back to all contributors and asking for approval.
- taway1237 3y ago
  Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. I mean I dislike CLAs personally, but I understand why they can be healthy for a project growth.
  - gtirloni 3y ago
    No, the issue is not that they are not open source. The issue is the risk to users/contributors. These two things are being conflated in this discussion. One thing is a CLA and copyright/license changes. The other is the license itself.
  - ekidd 3y ago
    > Ah yes, CLAs are not a real open source, which is why they're required by uhh FSF. The last time I saw a FSF CLA, it was part of a larger agreement that also imposed obligations on the FSF. In the long run, there may be risks to the FSF holding so many copyrights. But I don't think it clarifies matters to treat the FSF's CLAs the same as ones used by a "open core" VC funded startup.
  - gkbrk 3y ago
    Do you truly see no difference between assigning rights to your own code to a non-profit foundation dedicated to Free Software and assigning rights to your own code to a for-profit company? Especially when the for-profit company openly announces this assignment of rights is for the purpose of selling code you wrote to others without giving back to the authors. The FSF doesn't have a track record of asking for CLAs, and then selling your code to others under different licenses and pocketing the profits.

david_draco 3y ago

> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. If you sell someone a AGPLv3 licensed software, that is completely okay and FOSS. If that someone sells someone else a (maybe modified) AGPLv3 licensed software, that is completely okay and FOSS. Not only Matrix can resell Element for a fee, so can you! That is open source and freedom for you. The ability to change or dual-license has always been limited to special circumstances. That said, yeah, don't sign a CLA.

dingnuts 3y ago
No, the Affero GPL is not "FOSS". It is Open Source but it is NOT libre because of the additional requirements (forced upstream contributions even on unreleased modified versions of the upstream software) imposed on potential forks of the project. Affero GPL is the premier tool of "open source" corporations to confuse potential contributors into THINKING that the project is FOSS and in order to trick them into giving up their labor for free. Don't fall for it! If someone wants you to contribute to an AGPL project, you should ask: how much will you pay me for my labor? The AGPL is the single best example of the difference between Open Source and Libre software. The AGPL is so restrictive and grants so much power to the original rights holder that it is really a source available proprietary license. Stop giving your labor to for-profit companies for free! It screws all of us! HEY DOWNVOTERS SHOW ME WHERE I'M WRONG IN THE LICENSE I quit a job over this stance, because I won't contribute to this farce. But Element lovers downvote because they like being exploited and won't even comment to show me why I'm wrong about this
- FireInsight 3y ago
  From the FSF: > The GNU Affero General Public License is a modified version of the ordinary GNU GPL version 3. It has one added requirement: if you run a modified program on a server and let other users communicate with it there, your server must also allow them to download the source code corresponding to the modified version running there. I don't understand how this corresponds with anything you are saying.
  - dingnuts 3y ago

Loic 3y ago

I way prefer them to do that than them to close their shop. They do all the development and then you have some big software development providers selling solutions for millions of € to government agencies and they get nothing out of it. That at some point they consider that a part should go back to them or if no money some code is fair.

josephcsible 3y ago

> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. I agree with most of your comment, but not that.

camgunz 3y ago

Much of your comment is speculation and unfounded accusations. > This makes it clear that they intent to ship under some alternative license, for a fee. It makes it clear they intend to ship under the AGPLv3. What's wrong with that? They can change the license at a later date? Just fork! > I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. This is bananas; the AGPLv3 is extremely open source. And again, nothing prevents contributors from forking the code if Element closes it. > What they are doing is a required step to pull the same stunt as terraform. Didn't this result in the creation of OpenTofu? I haven't kept up and don't really have an opinion, but a cursory examination shows that their GitHub project has a gazillion stars [0]. > These folks are very unambiguously screwing over the community and making it sound otherwise. They've contributed an enormous amount of work to try and move the state of the art in messaging forward in a way that respects users (being extremely open, implementing end-to-end encryption, embracing decentralization, etc). Your characterizations of them are super uncharitable. They owe you precisely nothing. [0]: https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu https://github.com/opentofu/opentofu

lannisterstark 3y ago
[flagged]
- camgunz 3y ago
  > the slightest criticism This thread is full of people being super negative about the Element team. It's definitely not "slight" criticism. > a lot of people come out of woodwork with the tried and true "they owe you nothing" line. Criticism is how we improve and I'm a fan, but there's a difference between constructive criticism (which would be something like, "it looks like you're trying to build a sustainable revenue stream to continue your work on Matrix/Element but I'm not sure this is the best way to go about it, here's an alternative") and entitlement. Entitlement is demanding that Element essentially not run a business to fund Matrix/Element development. You might not think you're doing that, but what else could you be doing? - You can't think Element is getting special treatment; anyone could do what they're doing here. - You can't think this change could open the door to some entity buying a proprietary license and "causing problems" because that applies to the Apache version as well (you can close source an Apache 2.0 project). - You can't think Element would lock away community contributions; the community is free to fork Element's version if they do ever close the source. - You can't think they're tricking people into contributing to their versions and profiting unethically from them; they're being super upfront about this (they make you sign the CLA that makes this clear!) and anyone is free to continue contributing to the Apache-licensed versions. And again if you don't like either of those options, make your own fork! Or write your own server, the Matrix/Element people have erected a super open development and standards process (you're welcome!) Thus your only objection must be that Element is forcing people to pay if they want to run a closed-source version of their code. Another way to say that is you feel entitled to run a closed-source version of their code for free. You might say, "but Element's CLA gives them the ability to run a closed-source version of my code for free" which is true. The difference is they're giving you a choice, whereas you're demanding it from them. > A community is allowed to have certain expectations, champ. Please don't condescend, avoid snark, yadda.

jzb 3y ago

Never is a bit much. It really depends on the language in the CLA. Are you giving them the right to change the license, etc? Some CLAs (e.g. Apache’s) are not objectionable. Some are very objectionable.

nabla9 3y ago
Element uses standard Apache CLA.

sokoloff 3y ago

> As usual, remember to never sign a CLA. Never sign a CLA unless you want the recipient to have full rights to your code. I’ve signed the FSF CLA, precisely because I want them to have that higher level of rights to my contribution.

StopHammoTime 3y ago

Hard disagree with your sentiment here. The AGPL is what every company doing BSL stuff should have done. They will never deviate internally from their upstream repo, they have to keep it maintained to make it worthwhile. Yes, they can relicense contributions to paid customers but that’s the case anywhere. People need to make money and that’s okay. The problem is when the publicly facing code is relicensed and a person who has contributed effectively loses the rights to run their own code. This solves that problem as long as that person continues to be a good open source citizen. The AGPL rocks.

matheusmoreira 3y ago

Agreed. The difficulty of changing the license is proportional to how many copyright holders there are. To change Linux's license, everyone who ever contributed to it probably needs to agree in writing. In comparison, it is trivial for a single copyright holder to change the license, even the GPL. Anyone contributing should know the risk exists.

bruce511 3y ago

>> As usual, remember to never sign a CLA. I see this a lot. And I think I understand where you are coming from. But I guess I see things another way. My thinking is something like this. I'm using project x (for free). I fix something or whatever. I contribute it back because that's the social contract. It's my minor contribution, my paltry acknowledgement of the value you add to me. Do as you please with it. It's not a stick for me to wave later on. It's not a ticket for me into your boardroom. Here it is, it's my gift to you. I fully expect you to create a commercial product down the road. I acknowledge that you probably like eating as much as I do. I've no problem with that. I'm probably not the market for you, I'll likely never actually pay you, so here's my offering. If and when you make a commercial offering I'll have lots of options. You'll have lots of options. Worst case I'll make a fork, or move onto something else. You owe me nothing, I have received more than I gave. I wish you well. So sure, here's my CLA. I do this for you, not for me. -- I'm not saying that my attitude is more, or less, right than yours. If you don't want to sign a CLA, then don't. That's fine. I present merely an alternative viewpoint.

znpy 3y ago

> never sign a cla I generally agree, however a cla in this case might make sense: 1. Allow for dual licensing, helping make the project sustainable 2. Help with copyright assignment, keeping stuff free: it makes possible to switch to agpl v4 if it’ll ever come out. Point 2 is particularly important and is why linux will be forever stuck on gplv2

thiht 3y ago

> I wouldn’t consider any of this open source any more. It’s literally AGPL. Do you believe a project must not be sustainable to be considered true open source?

xinayder 3y ago

> What they are doing is a required step to pull the same stunt as terraform. Except that Terraform never had a strict open source license like the AGPL, they had MPL which doesn't require you to distribute your changes with the same license as the project. I don't see this as hostile and I believe it's more targeted towards Beeper (created by the Mautrix bridge devs), who maintain a closed fork of Synapse and will eventually sell their services for other users. This way makes sure that the Beeper devs either contribute back to their upstream projects, or pay a fee to not have to contribute back.

Arathorn 3y ago
fwiw, it’s not targeted at Beeper, who support Matrix via the Foundation, and who I believe are happy to publish their synapse changes under the AGPL. It’s targeting companies and governments with many billions of dollars at their disposal who commercialise Matrix without contributing anything back at all.