6 ms·

Mattermost is MIT licensed. What is stopping anyone from removing this restriction?

by bramhaag 10mo ago

jstummbillig 10mo ago
I don't know, but that seems somewhat beside the point. The restriction obviously was not added to test peoples ability to remove it.
Y_Y 10mo ago
https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/issues/34271#issuecomment-3601919951 https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/issues/34271#issuec... Wanting to use Mattermost's binaries rather than building from source? Re licensing see: https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/mattermost/ https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/mattermost/
LudwigNagasena 10mo ago
It’s not open source, it’s “open core” SaaS.
bfkwlfkjf 10mo ago
The time and energy that it takes to do it and build it, and then make it easy for current users to move their automatic updates to the fork, then maintaining it etc.
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
J-Kuhn 10mo ago
The compiled binary is. The source code is... AGPL licensed? But not the admin tools. They seem to be licensed under the Apache License 2.0. -------- Yeah, good luck. Contact your lawyer.
- bfkwlfkjf 10mo ago
  Explain please. This interests me and I'm extremely curious about what you mean.
  - J-Kuhn 10mo ago
    Combining source code under different licenses into one product is a nightmare. You have to follow the AGPL "no additional restrictions" clause while also following the Apache License, and the Apache License might have require you to follow additional restrictions.
    - pastage 10mo ago
      Honestly this has never been an issue for me, sure I have had to explain the limits of the licenses and check that I understand them. I guess it depends on your use case, so I am still uncertain when this has become a problem for you.
- true_religion 10mo ago
  AGPL and Apache are both open source licenses. So I’m not getting what the confusion would be as an end user, who won’t be modifying the software or packaging it for sale.
  - ekjhgkejhgk 10mo ago
    They're both FREE software licenses, which is more. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- dns_snek 10mo ago
  > Yeah, good luck. Contact your lawyer. Why? The intent seems pretty clear and they're legally allowed to do this because all contributors signed a CLA.
csomar 10mo ago
Nothing. Open Source is dying. The model to finance open source work (well-off suburban american dads or as a portfolio show off) no longer apply. The old generation that believed in this model is retiring and for the new generation it pays better to "network", leet code, or spam your resume to thousands of employers. Now couple that with the fact that supply-chain control is profitable (legally or illegally); I think the next 5-10 years will be interesting.
- Zacharias030 10mo ago
  almost seems like there is now too much money in software. the old times felt like computer science was mostly a science.
- Ekaros 10mo ago
  There never was a model to fund open source. At least outside largest and most wide spread codebases. I think it is that reality is finally hitting. Free money has run out and now software must stand as either community efforts, wide enough used foundations or forced support.
- IshKebab 10mo ago
  I don't think anything has changed really. Open source never really had a good funding option.
mort96 10mo ago
Maintaining your own fork is a ton of work. Even if it's just routinely rebasing on upstream and maintaining your own upgrade infrastructure and doing releases, that's far from trivial. The open source community really needs to stop with the "just fork it" mindset.
- derefr 10mo ago
  I don't think the implication is that anyone as an individual would fork it. I think the implication is that some other interested org could very easily step in and assume the role that the Mattermost org was in, and everyone would very eagerly switch and leave Mattermost itself speaking to an empty room.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - whatevaa 10mo ago
    Still need someone to do unthankful work, in which many are not interested, naturally.
    - nlitened 10mo ago
      You actually don't have to maintain the fork and/or update to latest version if you don't need new features.
      - regularfry 10mo ago
        Or patched vulnerabilities.
      - mort96 10mo ago
        You don't have to maintain the fork and/or update to the latest version if you don't need new features or security fixes. Most people want security fixes.
- integralid 10mo ago
compsciphd 10mo ago
glancing through the code, it doesn't seem like it be that hard to remove limitations such as this. PostHistoryLimit/postHistoryLimit interpreted from License Limits. a little poke here and there and I'd guess the limitations would disappear.
giancarlostoro 10mo ago
No. The binaries they prepackage for you are MIT. If you want the source it is AGPL or you pay for a proprietary license.

Mattermost is MIT licensed. What is stopping anyone from removing this restriction?

I don't know, but that seems somewhat beside the point. The restriction obviously was not added to test peoples ability to remove it.

Y_Y 10mo ago

https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/issues/34271#issuecomment-3601919951 https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/issues/34271#issuec... Wanting to use Mattermost's binaries rather than building from source? Re licensing see: https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/mattermost/ https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/mattermost/

LudwigNagasena 10mo ago

It’s not open source, it’s “open core” SaaS.

bfkwlfkjf 10mo ago

The time and energy that it takes to do it and build it, and then make it easy for current users to move their automatic updates to the fork, then maintaining it etc.

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

J-Kuhn 10mo ago

The compiled binary is. The source code is... AGPL licensed? But not the admin tools. They seem to be licensed under the Apache License 2.0. -------- Yeah, good luck. Contact your lawyer.

bfkwlfkjf 10mo ago
Explain please. This interests me and I'm extremely curious about what you mean.
- J-Kuhn 10mo ago
  Combining source code under different licenses into one product is a nightmare. You have to follow the AGPL "no additional restrictions" clause while also following the Apache License, and the Apache License might have require you to follow additional restrictions.
  - pastage 10mo ago
    Honestly this has never been an issue for me, sure I have had to explain the limits of the licenses and check that I understand them. I guess it depends on your use case, so I am still uncertain when this has become a problem for you.
true_religion 10mo ago
AGPL and Apache are both open source licenses. So I’m not getting what the confusion would be as an end user, who won’t be modifying the software or packaging it for sale.
- ekjhgkejhgk 10mo ago
  They're both FREE software licenses, which is more. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
dns_snek 10mo ago
> Yeah, good luck. Contact your lawyer. Why? The intent seems pretty clear and they're legally allowed to do this because all contributors signed a CLA.

csomar 10mo ago

Nothing. Open Source is dying. The model to finance open source work (well-off suburban american dads or as a portfolio show off) no longer apply. The old generation that believed in this model is retiring and for the new generation it pays better to "network", leet code, or spam your resume to thousands of employers. Now couple that with the fact that supply-chain control is profitable (legally or illegally); I think the next 5-10 years will be interesting.

Zacharias030 10mo ago
almost seems like there is now too much money in software. the old times felt like computer science was mostly a science.
Ekaros 10mo ago
There never was a model to fund open source. At least outside largest and most wide spread codebases. I think it is that reality is finally hitting. Free money has run out and now software must stand as either community efforts, wide enough used foundations or forced support.
IshKebab 10mo ago
I don't think anything has changed really. Open source never really had a good funding option.

mort96 10mo ago

Maintaining your own fork is a ton of work. Even if it's just routinely rebasing on upstream and maintaining your own upgrade infrastructure and doing releases, that's far from trivial. The open source community really needs to stop with the "just fork it" mindset.

derefr 10mo ago
I don't think the implication is that anyone as an individual would fork it. I think the implication is that some other interested org could very easily step in and assume the role that the Mattermost org was in, and everyone would very eagerly switch and leave Mattermost itself speaking to an empty room.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- whatevaa 10mo ago
  Still need someone to do unthankful work, in which many are not interested, naturally.
  - nlitened 10mo ago
    You actually don't have to maintain the fork and/or update to latest version if you don't need new features.
    - regularfry 10mo ago
      Or patched vulnerabilities.
    - mort96 10mo ago
      You don't have to maintain the fork and/or update to the latest version if you don't need new features or security fixes. Most people want security fixes.
integralid 10mo ago

compsciphd 10mo ago

glancing through the code, it doesn't seem like it be that hard to remove limitations such as this. PostHistoryLimit/postHistoryLimit interpreted from License Limits. a little poke here and there and I'd guess the limitations would disappear.

giancarlostoro 10mo ago

No. The binaries they prepackage for you are MIT. If you want the source it is AGPL or you pay for a proprietary license.