4 ms·

This situation is no different than it was when Synapse was licensed under Apache, though.

danShumway 3y ago
Agreed (mostly). Apache is not a defense against proprietary relicensing regardless of who owns the code (and it's why Matrix is able to make this change even though it didn't have a CLA before). It's a shame though because this change feels like it's weaponizing the AGPL to make the code harder to use rather than relying on the AGPL to preserve software freedom, and it's a shame because I think a more nuanced and limited contributor agreement with narrower permissions could potentially have the opposite effect and be a highly positive change and a highly credible commitment to keeping the project Open, without closing off any of the revenue opportunities that Element seems to be chasing. I will push back a little though on the idea that nothing is different at all. This change also has the side-effect of giving contributors fewer rights over the code they write themselves. It's not clear to me whether the copyright assignment here means that the contributor is also bound by the AGPL for the code they themselves submit. If that's the case, then this is a meaningful reduction of contributor rights. I think the GPL works best when it is a universal mutual agreement by all parties to keep the code Open to everyone under the same terms; not when it is used selectively to close off specific rights of only specific parties. But as it stands, without a CLA I could write the same code for both Element and a more permissive fork of Element and I could choose to relicense the code I offer Element to allow for the more permissive use. With a CLA, I don't know that I can do that.
alohapersona3 3y ago
Not entirely. Under the Apache license, everyone can contribute to the Apache-licensed code and mix that code with proprietary code as they wish. Under AGPL-only that's not possible, only code that was contributed under Element's CLA can be relicensed by them and then mixed with the proprietary code. That makes contributing code under AGPL-only less attractive if you need to use the proprietary code.
- feanaro 3y ago
  Well definitely, but as a net benefit, we'll have less proprietary Matrix code than before. Or the people needing to use Synapse in a proprietary setting can contact Element for a proprietary licence, in which case Element will be able to pay its salaries and keep developing Matrix. It really seems like a net win, except for the people that were planning to build proprietary services on top of Synapse without contributing back.

Agreed (mostly). Apache is not a defense against proprietary relicensing regardless of who owns the code (and it's why Matrix is able to make this change even though it didn't have a CLA before). It's a shame though because this change feels like it's weaponizing the AGPL to make the code harder to use rather than relying on the AGPL to preserve software freedom, and it's a shame because I think a more nuanced and limited contributor agreement with narrower permissions could potentially have the opposite effect and be a highly positive change and a highly credible commitment to keeping the project Open, without closing off any of the revenue opportunities that Element seems to be chasing. I will push back a little though on the idea that nothing is different at all. This change also has the side-effect of giving contributors fewer rights over the code they write themselves. It's not clear to me whether the copyright assignment here means that the contributor is also bound by the AGPL for the code they themselves submit. If that's the case, then this is a meaningful reduction of contributor rights. I think the GPL works best when it is a universal mutual agreement by all parties to keep the code Open to everyone under the same terms; not when it is used selectively to close off specific rights of only specific parties. But as it stands, without a CLA I could write the same code for both Element and a more permissive fork of Element and I could choose to relicense the code I offer Element to allow for the more permissive use. With a CLA, I don't know that I can do that.

alohapersona3 3y ago

Not entirely. Under the Apache license, everyone can contribute to the Apache-licensed code and mix that code with proprietary code as they wish. Under AGPL-only that's not possible, only code that was contributed under Element's CLA can be relicensed by them and then mixed with the proprietary code. That makes contributing code under AGPL-only less attractive if you need to use the proprietary code.

feanaro 3y ago
Well definitely, but as a net benefit, we'll have less proprietary Matrix code than before. Or the people needing to use Synapse in a proprietary setting can contact Element for a proprietary licence, in which case Element will be able to pay its salaries and keep developing Matrix. It really seems like a net win, except for the people that were planning to build proprietary services on top of Synapse without contributing back.