5 ms·

I assume they're paying for a service, probably developing Matrix? I would rather have them use the small amount of money they have on developing Matrix rather

by Laaas 3y ago

I assume they're paying for a service, probably developing Matrix? I would rather have them use the small amount of money they have on developing Matrix rather than explaining where each coin went. This comment seems relevant: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issuecomment-1407653952 https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...

joshsimmons 3y ago
The Foundation has a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Element which includes administrative services (accounting, legal, etc), operation of the matrix.org homeserver, and secondment of several personnel whose responsibilities include advocacy, program management, standards work, and trust and safety. The MSA also includes provisions for the Foundation to reimburse Element for any bills they pay on our behalf. For the most part, the Foundation hasn't directed much funding to active development as other folks in the ecosystem have been doing that ably. That isn't to say we don't fund development though – most recently we've been investing in developing open source trust and safety tools.
makomk 3y ago
This reply about how in reality there's very little benefit to the community from the copyright being assigned to the foundation is a lot more perceptive than that comment, especially now that exactly what it foresaw has come to pass: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issuecomment-1407743790 https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...
- Laaas 3y ago
  What do you mean it has come to pass?
  - makomk 3y ago
    The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license. It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since they're not interested in competing with Element. This was specifically to obstruct other companies from providing Matrix-based enterprise offerings. There was an announcement about it which made it onto HN a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275
    - danShumway 3y ago
      What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allows that. But with a CLA, it becomes much easier for their code to move towards source-available. The thing is, a GPL or AGPL license without a CLA would actually be a reasonable defense against closing down the software in the future, since it would block Element from being relicensed to something more restrictive without the permission of the copyright holders. Even if there is a legitimate need to sell exceptions, a CLA that gave the company a limited right to sell specific exceptions would be better than full copyright assignment and would actually increase my trust in the project rather than worrying me.
      - brunoqc 3y ago
        Yeah. I got burned by a CLA before. Never again.
      - dmacvicar 3y ago
        NextCloud does exactly this: AGPL, no CLA. https://github.com/nextcloud/server#contribution-guidelines- https://github.com/nextcloud/server#contribution-guidelines- >Nextcloud doesn't require a CLA (Contributor License Agreement). The copyright belongs to all the individual contributors. Therefore we recommend that every contributor adds the following line to the header of a file if they changed it substantially: > >@copyright Copyright (c) <year>, <your name> (<your email address>)
      - grey_earthling 3y ago
        Element requiring a CLA has only 1 practical effect: Element are effectively saying that in their repo of Synapse/Dendrite, they won't integrate any copyleft code they can't relicense. Other organisations could still choose to maintain a repo of Synapse/Dendrite that integrates any AGPL code, including all code released by Element. That might be a better upstream than Element! — but it would take work. For it to happen, someone would need to do and/or fund that work.

by Laaas 3y ago

joshsimmons 3y ago

The Foundation has a Master Services Agreement (MSA) with Element which includes administrative services (accounting, legal, etc), operation of the matrix.org homeserver, and secondment of several personnel whose responsibilities include advocacy, program management, standards work, and trust and safety. The MSA also includes provisions for the Foundation to reimburse Element for any bills they pay on our behalf. For the most part, the Foundation hasn't directed much funding to active development as other folks in the ecosystem have been doing that ably. That isn't to say we don't fund development though – most recently we've been investing in developing open source trust and safety tools.

makomk 3y ago

This reply about how in reality there's very little benefit to the community from the copyright being assigned to the foundation is a lot more perceptive than that comment, especially now that exactly what it foresaw has come to pass: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issuecomment-1407743790 https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...

Laaas 3y ago
What do you mean it has come to pass?
- makomk 3y ago
  The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license. It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since they're not interested in competing with Element. This was specifically to obstruct other companies from providing Matrix-based enterprise offerings. There was an announcement about it which made it onto HN a while back: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275
  - danShumway 3y ago
    What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project public and Open, it's good for things being built on top of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed. And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary direction later; Apache 2 allows that. But with a CLA, it becomes much easier for their code to move towards source-available. The thing is, a GPL or AGPL license without a CLA would actually be a reasonable defense against closing down the software in the future, since it would block Element from being relicensed to something more restrictive without the permission of the copyright holders. Even if there is a legitimate need to sell exceptions, a CLA that gave the company a limited right to sell specific exceptions would be better than full copyright assignment and would actually increase my trust in the project rather than worrying me.
    - brunoqc 3y ago
      Yeah. I got burned by a CLA before. Never again.
    - dmacvicar 3y ago
      NextCloud does exactly this: AGPL, no CLA. https://github.com/nextcloud/server#contribution-guidelines- https://github.com/nextcloud/server#contribution-guidelines- >Nextcloud doesn't require a CLA (Contributor License Agreement). The copyright belongs to all the individual contributors. Therefore we recommend that every contributor adds the following line to the header of a file if they changed it substantially: > >@copyright Copyright (c) <year>, <your name> (<your email address>)
    - grey_earthling 3y ago
      Element requiring a CLA has only 1 practical effect: Element are effectively saying that in their repo of Synapse/Dendrite, they won't integrate any copyleft code they can't relicense. Other organisations could still choose to maintain a repo of Synapse/Dendrite that integrates any AGPL code, including all code released by Element. That might be a better upstream than Element! — but it would take work. For it to happen, someone would need to do and/or fund that work.