6 ms·

LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant

172 points by MallocVoidstar 8mo ago

almosthere 8mo ago
if there is no license, then it is public domain if they put code on a website
- eikenberry 8mo ago
  This is not true in the US where everything is automatically copyrighted and protected, so nothing goes directly into the public domain (even if the author wants it). Thus no license means that you have no license to use the code legally.
  - throwaway150 8mo ago
    Correct. That's not true in Europe either. IIRC it's not true in Asia either. I don't understand why so many people who don't have even the most basic understanding or experience of licensing feel they must post their opinion as if they were facts. People are certainly entitled to their opinion. But so many comments here are speaking absolute nonsense about licensing as if they were facts. I genuinely don't understand why people feel compelled to do so.
  - redwall_hp 8mo ago
    Or any country the US has a reciprocal copyright treaty with, which is all but a vanishingly small set of countries. A work is protected by copyright the moment it's authored, and all rights are reserved unless it's explicitly licensed otherwise.
- fwip 8mo ago
  Not applicable and also incorrect.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
ggm 8mo ago
> at this time we are not entertaining any changes as such. Always wonder what leads people to write like this. What does "as such" add to the sentence? At least "at this time" is temporally conditional to the future, it has purpose. Entertaining is posh "thinking about" or "interested in" so had the merit of being one word in place of two but so is "considering" Are we not entertained?
- 1attice 8mo ago
  Well, it means no changes _intended as_ changes [pertaining to the topic at hand]; it implies there may be incidental alterations or differences, eg this issue might be addressed in a blanket legal revamp (whatever that's called) but, at least over this, they aren't pulling over the station wagon to argue with the screaming stakeholders in the back. It's what we used to call "load-bearing vagueness"
  - ggm 8mo ago
    > "load-bearing vagueness" Stealing this. That's ACE!!
- awesome_dude 8mo ago
  It's good English, it has actual meaning (your thinking of "at this time" is only one interpretation, it more likely means "We're not entertaining changes of that kind/nature" )
  - ggm 8mo ago
    Ah, so any changes they did entertain, would be changes, but they disclaim making changes such as these for this purpose?
    - awesome_dude 8mo ago
      > so any changes they did entertain I guess, as long as people remember that zero is a possible number in 'any' > but they disclaim making changes such as these for this purpose? That's my read
BadBadJellyBean 8mo ago
This would lead me to steer away from the project. They clearly like the way it is and that is unclear for everyone apart from maybe them. I am not even sure it benefits them though.
constantcrying 8mo ago
You should read the license, it seems somewhat insane to be honest: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...
- londons_explore 8mo ago
  Looks pretty logical to me... It is AGPL 3.0, except they give you slightly more rights with a promise not to enforce certain provisions in certain circumstances.
  - Hamuko 8mo ago
    It's not AGPL 3.0. The binaries are MIT, the codebase (from where the MIT binaries are built from) is AGPL 3.0, except for the bits of the codebase that are Apache 2.0, and there's some kind of a promise about not enforcing a part of AGPL if you don't link to their platform directly and exclusively use the bits of the code that are Apache 2.0, and also don't make a modified version of the software. And also you can just license it commercially too.
  - deleted 8mo ago
    [deleted]
- wccrawford 8mo ago
  What do you think about it sounds insane?
  - SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
    It says you "may be licensed" to use the source code under AGPL v3.0, but never actually makes an unambiguous statement that suchandsuch code is licensed under AGPL v3.0. The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact, but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also extremely strange.
    - mbauman 8mo ago
giancarlostoro 8mo ago
I'm already shutting down my private instance of Mattermost, no thank you. I'm thinking of Zulip, at least they aren't pulling this shenanigans.
- CuriouslyC 8mo ago
  That seems to be what most slack abandoners end up on.
- pixelpoet 8mo ago
  I run a Zulip server and it's pretty good. The way they organise channels is extremely convoluted unfortunately (I wish they would just use absolutely standard channels layout like every other chat, and have everyone able to see them on join!) but well, beggars can't be choosers.
  - tazjin 8mo ago
    People go through all this trouble to host convoluted chat systems, and all this time IRC is right there. There's modern servers like Ergo and modern clients like Halloy (or for the JavaScript addicts: Convos, The Lounge, Kiwi, ...) providing all the multi-device history sharing and emoji reactions you could need. All on top of a super simple, extremely battle tested protocol.
    - comex 8mo ago
      But according to https://ircv3.net/software/clients https://ircv3.net/software/clients, none of the clients you mentioned actually support emoji reactions (draft/react), and other features like multi-line messages and image uploads are likewise extremely limited in server/client support. So, for the time being, you can't use these features if you want to actually be interoperable with existing IRC users and their clients. Sounds like if you want decentralized, Matrix is still the better bet.
    - giancarlostoro 8mo ago
      I have hosted IRC before but im not about to explain all the nuances to my non technical friends and family. At that point I will just use XMPP.
Hamuko 8mo ago
If the binaries are licensed under MIT, can I decompile the binaries, clean up the source code and have a clean version of Mattermost for distribution?
- londons_explore 8mo ago
  Yes you can
dooglius 8mo ago
The license seems perfectly clear in that it's multiply-licensed under AGPL, MIT, and corporate licensing based on different use cases. Maybe this guy has reading comprehension issues, but more likely he's just unhappy with the corporate part and wants to stir drama.
- MallocVoidstar 8mo ago
  They could simply say that, then, instead of saying you might be able to use it under the AGPL.
  - nimih 8mo ago
    They didn't say you "might" be able to use it under the AGPL, but that you "may" be licensed to use it. Which, as a native speaker of American English, seems to be relatively clear in its meaning along the lines of what the GP poster stated. Of course, the various meanings of "may" in English might be subtle enough that I'd readily believe it's less clear to non-native speakers (or maybe even speakers of a different dialect), and it's unfortunate that Mattermost's lawyers aren't interesting in cleaning up the language.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- epistasis 8mo ago
  Hopefully I'm not violating copyright by taking this small chunk of their LICENSE.txt, but this appears to be the language that some want clarified: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... ---- You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE - See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for details You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways: 1. Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or 2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting commercial@mattermost.com
bilekas 8mo ago
Isn't this by default unlicensed then? I would avoid it anyway. Absolutely no need for that risk.
- Fnoord 8mo ago
  It used to be like that, yes. If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain. Those times are long gone though.
  - throwaway150 8mo ago
    > If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain. I don't think this has ever been the case. If a license is not mentioned, it is always "All rights reserved" by the authors of the project, by the Berne convention (1886).
    - fhdkweig 8mo ago
      While I don't know if license and copyright are the same thing, the film Night of the Living Dead was famously accidentally added to the public domain due to a forgotten copyright notice.
      - compass_copium 8mo ago
        I believe that was a forgotten renewal of copyright status.
      - throwaway150 8mo ago
        Wow. I didn't know that. Looks like this is a very US thing. I looked up now and TIL that US adopted the Berne convention as late as 1989. I'm surprised. So this movie released in 1966 didn't have default "all rights reserved" due to Berne convention. But most European countries, like 80%, had adopted the Berne convention by 1925. So when software was developed in Europe they automatically got "all rights reserved".
      - whstl 8mo ago
chobeat 8mo ago
Go on Zulip or Anytype
michaelt 8mo ago
To me, this seems kinda reasonable. The reality is licenses are all nonsense and none of it makes any sense. There could be secret patents nobody knows about. That precise wording written by American lawyers might not hold up in Chinese courts. There might be two compatible licenses, but one is 20x the length of the other; obviously some legal expert thought those extra words were needed - but are they? What's going on with linking and derivative works? Do you need to copy-and-paste the full legal blurb into every single file, or not? Why are some sections written in all caps, and does the reason for doing that apply globally? What if someone claimed to have the right to contribute code to an open project but actually had an employment contract meaning the code wasn't theirs to transfer? What's the copyright status of three-line stackoverflow answers? The truth is nobody knows, and nobody cares. You and I won't get sued, probably, and if we do it's not like we'd have avoided it by reading the license. Might as well ignore it, like people ignore website terms of use and software click-through licenses and other legal mumbo-jumbo. On the other hand, if you're the kind of gigantic enterprise that has policies on software licenses and a team of in-house lawyers and you can't use this software without greater license clarity? Well, you can get that licensing clarity with the enterprise version of the software.
- bogwog 8mo ago
  The AGPL accomplishes the same thing, except there is no ambiguity and you never have to wonder "could I be sued for using this software?"
- thisislife2 8mo ago
  > But nobody will get sued, and that's the only thing that matters. Do you really want to bet your business on that? Vizio thought the same when using GPL code, and now they are in court. Software Freedom Conservancy sues Vizio for GPL violations - https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-sues-vizio-for-gpl-violations/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-s...
  - razingeden 8mo ago
    I don’t think they’re worried about “my business.” Open source is notorious for being implemented in $$$ COTS and commerce and then contributing $0 in money and then even less in contribs bug fixes or sharing in house tweaks,isn’t this what Wordpress has been melting down over for a year or two now? And I’m sure many more projects are pissed off or resenting their chains but not making an ugly scene about it. Something has to give here. I don’t have a dog in this fight other than to say that what mattermost went with here “is a choice” , and I have “a choice” whether to accept these terms. I’m interested in watching how it plays out though. They cast their die. Problems have solutions. We could all get into whether this solution is viable or not — doesn’t matter this is what they went with and they made it clear they’re not taking user input on it. I’m not even a user so I expect them to care even less about my thoughts. Im supportive of anyone trying to find an equitable balance but maybe that’s a situation where they could roll their own license with these clauses and exclusions. Its not like Microsoft or iTunes user agreements aren’t complete bullshit, yet people click okay and use all that.
thisislife2 8mo ago
Is the bad publicity worth it with this kind of rug pull to "we are opensource, but not really"? I get that an open source product can get you some free (word of mouth) and good publicity. But in general, open source is also strongly associated with "free" (as in you don't have to pay money for it). So if you do want to make money from a software product, weigh the pros and cons carefully - commercial open source products do tend to be less profitable than commercial closed-source versions. If you are ok with that, go with the open source business model. Otherwise, stick to the closed-source business model from the get go. Be honest from the start - brand damage is really costly to repair.
- LamaOfRuin 8mo ago
  I believe they generally refer to themselves as open-core.
  - lukan 8mo ago
    From this githubpage: "Mattermost is an open source platform for secure collaboration across the entire software development lifecycle.. "
    - throwaway89201 8mo ago
      But also: "open source" -> "open core" (9 months ago) [1] [1] https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/0cc906d07e73b1a589d697f0fb39b87ac3e285e8#diff-b335630551682c19a781afebcf4d07bf978fb1f8ac04c6bf87428ed5106870f5R3-R5 https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/0cc906d07e73...
- PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
  > But in general, open source is also strongly associated with "free" In the anglophone world, yes. In many other parts of the world, the gratis/libre distinction is clear in the language used.
nix0n 8mo ago
If you are looking for another self-hostable alternative to Slack, Rocket chat[0] is also worth looking at. I wasn't involved in any of the Dev Ops aspect when my former employer used them, but the search function actually worked which is better than I can say for Slack. [0]https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/blob/develop/LICENSE https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/blob/develop/LICEN...
- conception 8mo ago
  Curious if anyone has worked on just expanding IRC into an internal product? That’s more or less how slack started.
- IshKebab 8mo ago
  Really? I have yet to use a single Slack-alike with search that actually works - including Slack, Teams and Mattermost. I mean they "work" in that the search results happen to include your terms too, but they give you the actual relevant message only about 10% of the time. Rocket Chat does look nice! I quite liked Mattermost except for the mobile app being trash. How is the Rocket Chat mobile app?
  - nix0n 8mo ago
    > How is the Rocket Chat mobile app? I thought it was fine, but I can't compare to the Mattermost app since I've never tried to use that.
lefstathiou 8mo ago
Someone tried to shake our company down once. They posted all this stock imagery on the web, waited for someone to use it with an ambiguously worded attribution policy, then have a third party chase you down and demand $100k but will settle for $5k. It turns out we did attribute the right way (in our terms of use) and could prove it with logs of when we added the language and when it was removed after we removed the image, but I am sure they nail people all the time with this strategy. This didnt stop them from sending 20 emails, demand lawyers get on the phone, etc. There are a couple of similar scams like this out there.
- jabl 8mo ago
  Sounds like the creative commons attribution scam as detailed by Cory Doctorow https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/ https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/
- arjie 8mo ago
  Oh that's a classic trick. It's been going on for decades. One example I am particularly familiar with is that of Larry Philpot / User:Nightshooter on Wikimedia Commons. He would upload his photos there with an addendum on how he should be attributed. Any slight impression in the attribution would be followed by legal action. It was obviously a copyright troll mechanism and now all of his photos on Wikimedia Commons have forced attribution affixed by users that warns others that he sues people. His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-puppetry to get his content into a place. Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much. Here's the thread where he's discussed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_74#User:Nightshooter_-_block_&_deletion_request https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27... Here's an example forced-attribution photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg
  - jeltz 8mo ago
paxys 8mo ago
I dug around for ~10 minutes and it's probably not an exaggeration to say that Mattermost might have the most confusing licensing of any software product in existence. From the license page on their repo (https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...): > 1. You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE So just the compiled versions, not the source code. Ok, at least that is clear. But - the MIT license explictly allows for modification and redistribution. So can I do that? The next line. > See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for details Except this file doesn't exist anywhere in the repo or outside. > You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways: > 1. Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or > 2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting commercial@mattermost.com What does "may be licensed" mean? Do I have to contact them for a license? Or is an AGPL license implied? > You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0. Sure, let's throw another license in there, because there weren't enough already. > We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application ... [set of conditions] WTF does a "promise" mean here? Is this actually AGPL or not? Then they have copy pasted the entire Apache License, even though the project isn't licensed under Apache. Why?? Oh but that's not all. There's a separate license page at https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.html https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.htm..., which says: > Mattermost Team Edition (Open Source) - Open Source MIT License. Uh, what? That goes against everything said in LICENSE.txt. So now we are back to fully open source?
- ethin 8mo ago
  Wouldn't that license also violate the AGPL? I mean, it does say, in section 7: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying So, my interpretation is that I am free to license it under the AGPL; there is no "well, we might decide to do that", and I can strip all conditions they place upon me and comply only with the AGPL, and legally there is nothing they can do about it.
u1hcw9nx 8mo ago
Not clarifying is the right thing to do. If the license is unclear, it should be fixed by a lawyer who knows what they are doing. Nobody else in the company should try to explain what the license actually means. Trying to explain a license creates informal interpretations and a legal paper trail that can confuse things even more and be used against the company later. It can even create a new contract under some jurisdictions. Mattermost should be aware of the contra proferentem ('interpretation against the draftsman') doctrine of contractual interpretation. Ambiguity works against the party who provided the wording. Sometimes a license is confusing to a layman but consists of standard, established legal jargon. Don't touch the code until you know what it means from a source that knows what they are talking about. Don't take internet guesses or opinions as fact. This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.
- paxys 8mo ago
  If the license has been unclear for 8 years and the company hasn't bothered to get a lawyer to fix it then the "I'm just an engineer and don't know about this stuff" excuse doesn't apply. It's obvious that they are deliberately keeping the license vague and confusing to scare users into paying for a commercial edition while also calling their product "open source" for marketing purposes.
  - u1hcw9nx 8mo ago
    As I said, nobody should touch unclear license. Just forget the company and software, there is no reason to bitch about it. 7 years is too long to fix.
    - jeltz 8mo ago
      No, it is great that people bitch about it. These companies need to be called out and shamed. Now I know that I will not waste time evaluating Mattermost.
    - albedoa 8mo ago
ilaksh 8mo ago
This looks like either they are deliberately trying to trick people into thinking it's the MIT license, or have accidentally made the most confusing and nonsensical license ever. MIT licensed binary in a source code repo does not make any sense. This is a huge red flag.
- Ekaros 8mo ago
  Sounds like potentially expensive legal case if they try to enforce it. Opens it up to many arguments in many jurisdictions.
cess11 8mo ago
I suspect that no lawyer checked off on this licensing strategy. I'm also not so sure a serious business person checked off on annoying and scaring users that aren't but might in the future become customers or otherwise paying users.
orphea 8mo ago
I would just stay away from Mattermost. Don't host, don't use, don't contribute. Treat as source-available.
jrmg 8mo ago
It seems obvious that this ‘may’ is the ‘may’ used in the sense of granting permission: “you may go to the restroom”, “you may begin eating”, “you may ask questions now”, “you may kiss the bride” etc. All these are clear. The wedding officiant isn’t saying “You might have permission to kiss the bride! Just try it and we’ll find out! Ha ha!” To interpret this as saying that you might be licensed is just as nonsensical as that in this context. It’s in a file named “LICENSE.txt” explicitly meant to describe the license terms. Would ‘are’ be better? I’d say yes, but it’s silly to argue that this isn’t proper English for granting permission.
- throwaway150 8mo ago
  Speaking only for myself here. But I don't have the arrogance to assume that I can interpret legalese the way I interpret English. When shit goes to court, saying here's what I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy. There's a reason I hire lawyers for this kind of shit because they are really good at their job and I won't pretend I know their job better than they do.
  - bombcar 8mo ago
    > saying here's I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule against you) - but if what you thought "may" meant was close to what a "reasonable person" would have thought, you may be ruled against with no or low penalty.
    - throwaway150 8mo ago
      > It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule against you) Exactly what I said.
  - dijit 8mo ago
    you'd be surprised how much your command of the english language translates into legalise. Yes, there's a definite codex of legal terms that have specific legal meaning but sound like "open to interpretation" english, but, those are vanishingly small. Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is not said, then you get very very far. Source: spent about half-a-decade with very expensive swiss lawyers.
NewsaHackO 8mo ago
The last message on that thread before lieut-data responded and closed it was in 2023. Why did they even take action or reply to the issue in the first place? It could have easily gone under the rug.
gowld 8mo ago
GPL and AGLP both use the word "may" 31 times. If you aren't comfortable with the word "may", you'll have a lot of trouble with open source languages. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
- yencabulator 8mo ago
  GPL says "You may do this." This file says "You may be licensed" -- that is not an action I am able to take, that is an action they either do, or don't. It's not the same.
sowbug 8mo ago
Are there any instances where a fork of a project has altered the license language for the purpose of reducing this kind of ambiguity? Either the original license grant is expansive, so the clarification is welcome and the fork will become the standard unless/until the modification is upstreamed, or else the grant is restrictive, so the fork language is invalid, and the grantors face the risk of laches or other equitable defenses if they don't stop the fork from offering the less ambiguous interpretation that grantees rely on. Fork as legal test case, if you will.
scotty79 8mo ago
I think more software people should be doing that. Just confusing the hell out or lawyers (armchair and proper).
emacdona 8mo ago
I am not a lawyer. My reading of the license is: either (a) buy a license or (b) be bound by the AGPLv3 -- with _very_ limited exceptions. So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? If so, I have no sympathy.
- throwaway150 8mo ago
  > So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither > (a) want to buy a license nor > (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? No and no. People first want to know what the correct licenses are even before deciding which licensing path (including buying a commercial license) to take. You don't just commit to buying a commercial license without first understanding your options and comparing those options. People want to know what those options are. People are upset that a company cannot get the simple matter of open source licensing right. It's the easiest kind of licensing. But they cannot get it right. These upset people would now never want to do business with this company. People who would have otherwise been happy to purchase a commercial license would also stay away from the company because messing up open source licensing is a red flag. Who knows what kind of mess would be present in their commercial contracts. Yes, you can hire a lawyer to sort it out but I'd much rather do business with a company where I'm confident that the company is acting in good faith even before lawyers get involved. > If so, I have no sympathy. Your sympathy means nothing to me when I am picking vendors for my business. When I'm picking my vendors, I'm going to rely on professional legal expertise available to me, not the sympathies of random strangers on the internet.
  - emacdona 8mo ago
    >> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? > No and no. [...] >> If so, I have no sympathy. > Your sympathy means nothing to me Well, regardless... via the rules of logical implication, you have it.
    - emacdona 8mo ago
mring33621 8mo ago
Ok, their license is pretty strange: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... MIT for binaries distributed by Mattermost. But, if you compile it yourself: GNU AGPL v3.0 XOR Paid-for Enterprise License Then, for some odd reason, they append the text of Apache License Version 2.0!!!
- throwaway89201 8mo ago
  The frontend parts are explicitly and correctly licensed under the Apache license in the header of the same file.
  - mring33621 8mo ago
    Ooh, I see it now, right in the middle: "...You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0...."
  - godelski 8mo ago
    They also have a FAQ: https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.html https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.htm... Note that they have multiple licenses. This isn't entirely uncommon. The difference licenses apply to different things.
dang 8mo ago
Submitted title was "Mattermost say they will not clarify what license the project is under", which is against the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) I'm open to a different title than "LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant", which is obscure enough to qualify as misleading if not linkbait. However, its replacement should be an accurate, neutral title that preferably uses representative language from the article itself (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=representative%20article%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Re the "don't editorialize" bit in the rules: If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
junon 8mo ago
They want a business of some sort, not AGPL I'd assume. It doesn't look nefarious, just misguided. However a license switch will cause another hellstorm so I suppose they're in a tough spot.
wodenokoto 8mo ago
So the license starts out saying you can use the compiled binaries under MIT and the source code as either AGPL or you can receive a special license. Then it goes on with the Apache license text.

172 points by MallocVoidstar 8mo ago

almosthere 8mo ago

if there is no license, then it is public domain if they put code on a website

eikenberry 8mo ago
This is not true in the US where everything is automatically copyrighted and protected, so nothing goes directly into the public domain (even if the author wants it). Thus no license means that you have no license to use the code legally.
- throwaway150 8mo ago
  Correct. That's not true in Europe either. IIRC it's not true in Asia either. I don't understand why so many people who don't have even the most basic understanding or experience of licensing feel they must post their opinion as if they were facts. People are certainly entitled to their opinion. But so many comments here are speaking absolute nonsense about licensing as if they were facts. I genuinely don't understand why people feel compelled to do so.
- redwall_hp 8mo ago
  Or any country the US has a reciprocal copyright treaty with, which is all but a vanishingly small set of countries. A work is protected by copyright the moment it's authored, and all rights are reserved unless it's explicitly licensed otherwise.
fwip 8mo ago
Not applicable and also incorrect.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]

ggm 8mo ago

> at this time we are not entertaining any changes as such. Always wonder what leads people to write like this. What does "as such" add to the sentence? At least "at this time" is temporally conditional to the future, it has purpose. Entertaining is posh "thinking about" or "interested in" so had the merit of being one word in place of two but so is "considering" Are we not entertained?

1attice 8mo ago
Well, it means no changes _intended as_ changes [pertaining to the topic at hand]; it implies there may be incidental alterations or differences, eg this issue might be addressed in a blanket legal revamp (whatever that's called) but, at least over this, they aren't pulling over the station wagon to argue with the screaming stakeholders in the back. It's what we used to call "load-bearing vagueness"
- ggm 8mo ago
  > "load-bearing vagueness" Stealing this. That's ACE!!
awesome_dude 8mo ago
It's good English, it has actual meaning (your thinking of "at this time" is only one interpretation, it more likely means "We're not entertaining changes of that kind/nature" )
- ggm 8mo ago
  Ah, so any changes they did entertain, would be changes, but they disclaim making changes such as these for this purpose?
  - awesome_dude 8mo ago
    > so any changes they did entertain I guess, as long as people remember that zero is a possible number in 'any' > but they disclaim making changes such as these for this purpose? That's my read

BadBadJellyBean 8mo ago

This would lead me to steer away from the project. They clearly like the way it is and that is unclear for everyone apart from maybe them. I am not even sure it benefits them though.

constantcrying 8mo ago

You should read the license, it seems somewhat insane to be honest: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...

londons_explore 8mo ago
Looks pretty logical to me... It is AGPL 3.0, except they give you slightly more rights with a promise not to enforce certain provisions in certain circumstances.
- Hamuko 8mo ago
  It's not AGPL 3.0. The binaries are MIT, the codebase (from where the MIT binaries are built from) is AGPL 3.0, except for the bits of the codebase that are Apache 2.0, and there's some kind of a promise about not enforcing a part of AGPL if you don't link to their platform directly and exclusively use the bits of the code that are Apache 2.0, and also don't make a modified version of the software. And also you can just license it commercially too.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
wccrawford 8mo ago
What do you think about it sounds insane?
- SpicyLemonZest 8mo ago
  It says you "may be licensed" to use the source code under AGPL v3.0, but never actually makes an unambiguous statement that suchandsuch code is licensed under AGPL v3.0. The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact, but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also extremely strange.
  - mbauman 8mo ago

giancarlostoro 8mo ago

I'm already shutting down my private instance of Mattermost, no thank you. I'm thinking of Zulip, at least they aren't pulling this shenanigans.

CuriouslyC 8mo ago
That seems to be what most slack abandoners end up on.
pixelpoet 8mo ago
I run a Zulip server and it's pretty good. The way they organise channels is extremely convoluted unfortunately (I wish they would just use absolutely standard channels layout like every other chat, and have everyone able to see them on join!) but well, beggars can't be choosers.
- tazjin 8mo ago
  People go through all this trouble to host convoluted chat systems, and all this time IRC is right there. There's modern servers like Ergo and modern clients like Halloy (or for the JavaScript addicts: Convos, The Lounge, Kiwi, ...) providing all the multi-device history sharing and emoji reactions you could need. All on top of a super simple, extremely battle tested protocol.
  - comex 8mo ago
    But according to https://ircv3.net/software/clients https://ircv3.net/software/clients, none of the clients you mentioned actually support emoji reactions (draft/react), and other features like multi-line messages and image uploads are likewise extremely limited in server/client support. So, for the time being, you can't use these features if you want to actually be interoperable with existing IRC users and their clients. Sounds like if you want decentralized, Matrix is still the better bet.
  - giancarlostoro 8mo ago
    I have hosted IRC before but im not about to explain all the nuances to my non technical friends and family. At that point I will just use XMPP.

Hamuko 8mo ago

If the binaries are licensed under MIT, can I decompile the binaries, clean up the source code and have a clean version of Mattermost for distribution?

londons_explore 8mo ago
Yes you can

dooglius 8mo ago

The license seems perfectly clear in that it's multiply-licensed under AGPL, MIT, and corporate licensing based on different use cases. Maybe this guy has reading comprehension issues, but more likely he's just unhappy with the corporate part and wants to stir drama.

MallocVoidstar 8mo ago
They could simply say that, then, instead of saying you might be able to use it under the AGPL.
- nimih 8mo ago
  They didn't say you "might" be able to use it under the AGPL, but that you "may" be licensed to use it. Which, as a native speaker of American English, seems to be relatively clear in its meaning along the lines of what the GP poster stated. Of course, the various meanings of "may" in English might be subtle enough that I'd readily believe it's less clear to non-native speakers (or maybe even speakers of a different dialect), and it's unfortunate that Mattermost's lawyers aren't interesting in cleaning up the language.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
epistasis 8mo ago
Hopefully I'm not violating copyright by taking this small chunk of their LICENSE.txt, but this appears to be the language that some want clarified: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... ---- You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE - See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for details You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways: 1. Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or 2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting commercial@mattermost.com

bilekas 8mo ago

Isn't this by default unlicensed then? I would avoid it anyway. Absolutely no need for that risk.

Fnoord 8mo ago
It used to be like that, yes. If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain. Those times are long gone though.
- throwaway150 8mo ago
  > If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain. I don't think this has ever been the case. If a license is not mentioned, it is always "All rights reserved" by the authors of the project, by the Berne convention (1886).
  - fhdkweig 8mo ago
    While I don't know if license and copyright are the same thing, the film Night of the Living Dead was famously accidentally added to the public domain due to a forgotten copyright notice.
    - compass_copium 8mo ago
      I believe that was a forgotten renewal of copyright status.
    - throwaway150 8mo ago
      Wow. I didn't know that. Looks like this is a very US thing. I looked up now and TIL that US adopted the Berne convention as late as 1989. I'm surprised. So this movie released in 1966 didn't have default "all rights reserved" due to Berne convention. But most European countries, like 80%, had adopted the Berne convention by 1925. So when software was developed in Europe they automatically got "all rights reserved".
    - whstl 8mo ago

chobeat 8mo ago

Go on Zulip or Anytype

michaelt 8mo ago

To me, this seems kinda reasonable. The reality is licenses are all nonsense and none of it makes any sense. There could be secret patents nobody knows about. That precise wording written by American lawyers might not hold up in Chinese courts. There might be two compatible licenses, but one is 20x the length of the other; obviously some legal expert thought those extra words were needed - but are they? What's going on with linking and derivative works? Do you need to copy-and-paste the full legal blurb into every single file, or not? Why are some sections written in all caps, and does the reason for doing that apply globally? What if someone claimed to have the right to contribute code to an open project but actually had an employment contract meaning the code wasn't theirs to transfer? What's the copyright status of three-line stackoverflow answers? The truth is nobody knows, and nobody cares. You and I won't get sued, probably, and if we do it's not like we'd have avoided it by reading the license. Might as well ignore it, like people ignore website terms of use and software click-through licenses and other legal mumbo-jumbo. On the other hand, if you're the kind of gigantic enterprise that has policies on software licenses and a team of in-house lawyers and you can't use this software without greater license clarity? Well, you can get that licensing clarity with the enterprise version of the software.

bogwog 8mo ago
The AGPL accomplishes the same thing, except there is no ambiguity and you never have to wonder "could I be sued for using this software?"
thisislife2 8mo ago
> But nobody will get sued, and that's the only thing that matters. Do you really want to bet your business on that? Vizio thought the same when using GPL code, and now they are in court. Software Freedom Conservancy sues Vizio for GPL violations - https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-sues-vizio-for-gpl-violations/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-s...
- razingeden 8mo ago
  I don’t think they’re worried about “my business.” Open source is notorious for being implemented in $$$ COTS and commerce and then contributing $0 in money and then even less in contribs bug fixes or sharing in house tweaks,isn’t this what Wordpress has been melting down over for a year or two now? And I’m sure many more projects are pissed off or resenting their chains but not making an ugly scene about it. Something has to give here. I don’t have a dog in this fight other than to say that what mattermost went with here “is a choice” , and I have “a choice” whether to accept these terms. I’m interested in watching how it plays out though. They cast their die. Problems have solutions. We could all get into whether this solution is viable or not — doesn’t matter this is what they went with and they made it clear they’re not taking user input on it. I’m not even a user so I expect them to care even less about my thoughts. Im supportive of anyone trying to find an equitable balance but maybe that’s a situation where they could roll their own license with these clauses and exclusions. Its not like Microsoft or iTunes user agreements aren’t complete bullshit, yet people click okay and use all that.

thisislife2 8mo ago

Is the bad publicity worth it with this kind of rug pull to "we are opensource, but not really"? I get that an open source product can get you some free (word of mouth) and good publicity. But in general, open source is also strongly associated with "free" (as in you don't have to pay money for it). So if you do want to make money from a software product, weigh the pros and cons carefully - commercial open source products do tend to be less profitable than commercial closed-source versions. If you are ok with that, go with the open source business model. Otherwise, stick to the closed-source business model from the get go. Be honest from the start - brand damage is really costly to repair.

LamaOfRuin 8mo ago
I believe they generally refer to themselves as open-core.
- lukan 8mo ago
  From this githubpage: "Mattermost is an open source platform for secure collaboration across the entire software development lifecycle.. "
  - throwaway89201 8mo ago
    But also: "open source" -> "open core" (9 months ago) [1] [1] https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/0cc906d07e73b1a589d697f0fb39b87ac3e285e8#diff-b335630551682c19a781afebcf4d07bf978fb1f8ac04c6bf87428ed5106870f5R3-R5 https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/0cc906d07e73...
PaulDavisThe1st 8mo ago
> But in general, open source is also strongly associated with "free" In the anglophone world, yes. In many other parts of the world, the gratis/libre distinction is clear in the language used.

nix0n 8mo ago

If you are looking for another self-hostable alternative to Slack, Rocket chat[0] is also worth looking at. I wasn't involved in any of the Dev Ops aspect when my former employer used them, but the search function actually worked which is better than I can say for Slack. [0]https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/blob/develop/LICENSE https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/blob/develop/LICEN...

conception 8mo ago
Curious if anyone has worked on just expanding IRC into an internal product? That’s more or less how slack started.
IshKebab 8mo ago
Really? I have yet to use a single Slack-alike with search that actually works - including Slack, Teams and Mattermost. I mean they "work" in that the search results happen to include your terms too, but they give you the actual relevant message only about 10% of the time. Rocket Chat does look nice! I quite liked Mattermost except for the mobile app being trash. How is the Rocket Chat mobile app?
- nix0n 8mo ago
  > How is the Rocket Chat mobile app? I thought it was fine, but I can't compare to the Mattermost app since I've never tried to use that.

lefstathiou 8mo ago

Someone tried to shake our company down once. They posted all this stock imagery on the web, waited for someone to use it with an ambiguously worded attribution policy, then have a third party chase you down and demand $100k but will settle for $5k. It turns out we did attribute the right way (in our terms of use) and could prove it with logs of when we added the language and when it was removed after we removed the image, but I am sure they nail people all the time with this strategy. This didnt stop them from sending 20 emails, demand lawyers get on the phone, etc. There are a couple of similar scams like this out there.

jabl 8mo ago
Sounds like the creative commons attribution scam as detailed by Cory Doctorow https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/ https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/
arjie 8mo ago
Oh that's a classic trick. It's been going on for decades. One example I am particularly familiar with is that of Larry Philpot / User:Nightshooter on Wikimedia Commons. He would upload his photos there with an addendum on how he should be attributed. Any slight impression in the attribution would be followed by legal action. It was obviously a copyright troll mechanism and now all of his photos on Wikimedia Commons have forced attribution affixed by users that warns others that he sues people. His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-puppetry to get his content into a place. Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much. Here's the thread where he's discussed: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive_74#User:Nightshooter_-_block_&_deletion_request https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27... Here's an example forced-attribution photo: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg
- jeltz 8mo ago

paxys 8mo ago

I dug around for ~10 minutes and it's probably not an exaggeration to say that Mattermost might have the most confusing licensing of any software product in existence. From the license page on their repo (https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...): > 1. You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE So just the compiled versions, not the source code. Ok, at least that is clear. But - the MIT license explictly allows for modification and redistribution. So can I do that? The next line. > See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for details Except this file doesn't exist anywhere in the repo or outside. > You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways: > 1. Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or > 2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting commercial@mattermost.com What does "may be licensed" mean? Do I have to contact them for a license? Or is an AGPL license implied? > You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0. Sure, let's throw another license in there, because there weren't enough already. > We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application ... [set of conditions] WTF does a "promise" mean here? Is this actually AGPL or not? Then they have copy pasted the entire Apache License, even though the project isn't licensed under Apache. Why?? Oh but that's not all. There's a separate license page at https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.html https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.htm..., which says: > Mattermost Team Edition (Open Source) - Open Source MIT License. Uh, what? That goes against everything said in LICENSE.txt. So now we are back to fully open source?

ethin 8mo ago
Wouldn't that license also violate the AGPL? I mean, it does say, in section 7: > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying So, my interpretation is that I am free to license it under the AGPL; there is no "well, we might decide to do that", and I can strip all conditions they place upon me and comply only with the AGPL, and legally there is nothing they can do about it.

u1hcw9nx 8mo ago

Not clarifying is the right thing to do. If the license is unclear, it should be fixed by a lawyer who knows what they are doing. Nobody else in the company should try to explain what the license actually means. Trying to explain a license creates informal interpretations and a legal paper trail that can confuse things even more and be used against the company later. It can even create a new contract under some jurisdictions. Mattermost should be aware of the contra proferentem ('interpretation against the draftsman') doctrine of contractual interpretation. Ambiguity works against the party who provided the wording. Sometimes a license is confusing to a layman but consists of standard, established legal jargon. Don't touch the code until you know what it means from a source that knows what they are talking about. Don't take internet guesses or opinions as fact. This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.

paxys 8mo ago
If the license has been unclear for 8 years and the company hasn't bothered to get a lawyer to fix it then the "I'm just an engineer and don't know about this stuff" excuse doesn't apply. It's obvious that they are deliberately keeping the license vague and confusing to scare users into paying for a commercial edition while also calling their product "open source" for marketing purposes.
- u1hcw9nx 8mo ago
  As I said, nobody should touch unclear license. Just forget the company and software, there is no reason to bitch about it. 7 years is too long to fix.
  - jeltz 8mo ago
    No, it is great that people bitch about it. These companies need to be called out and shamed. Now I know that I will not waste time evaluating Mattermost.
  - albedoa 8mo ago

ilaksh 8mo ago

This looks like either they are deliberately trying to trick people into thinking it's the MIT license, or have accidentally made the most confusing and nonsensical license ever. MIT licensed binary in a source code repo does not make any sense. This is a huge red flag.

Ekaros 8mo ago
Sounds like potentially expensive legal case if they try to enforce it. Opens it up to many arguments in many jurisdictions.

cess11 8mo ago

I suspect that no lawyer checked off on this licensing strategy. I'm also not so sure a serious business person checked off on annoying and scaring users that aren't but might in the future become customers or otherwise paying users.

orphea 8mo ago

I would just stay away from Mattermost. Don't host, don't use, don't contribute. Treat as source-available.

jrmg 8mo ago

It seems obvious that this ‘may’ is the ‘may’ used in the sense of granting permission: “you may go to the restroom”, “you may begin eating”, “you may ask questions now”, “you may kiss the bride” etc. All these are clear. The wedding officiant isn’t saying “You might have permission to kiss the bride! Just try it and we’ll find out! Ha ha!” To interpret this as saying that you might be licensed is just as nonsensical as that in this context. It’s in a file named “LICENSE.txt” explicitly meant to describe the license terms. Would ‘are’ be better? I’d say yes, but it’s silly to argue that this isn’t proper English for granting permission.

throwaway150 8mo ago
Speaking only for myself here. But I don't have the arrogance to assume that I can interpret legalese the way I interpret English. When shit goes to court, saying here's what I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy. There's a reason I hire lawyers for this kind of shit because they are really good at their job and I won't pretend I know their job better than they do.
- bombcar 8mo ago
  > saying here's I thought "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule against you) - but if what you thought "may" meant was close to what a "reasonable person" would have thought, you may be ruled against with no or low penalty.
  - throwaway150 8mo ago
    > It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule against you) Exactly what I said.
- dijit 8mo ago
  you'd be surprised how much your command of the english language translates into legalise. Yes, there's a definite codex of legal terms that have specific legal meaning but sound like "open to interpretation" english, but, those are vanishingly small. Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is not said, then you get very very far. Source: spent about half-a-decade with very expensive swiss lawyers.

NewsaHackO 8mo ago

The last message on that thread before lieut-data responded and closed it was in 2023. Why did they even take action or reply to the issue in the first place? It could have easily gone under the rug.

gowld 8mo ago

GPL and AGLP both use the word "may" 31 times. If you aren't comfortable with the word "may", you'll have a lot of trouble with open source languages. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html

yencabulator 8mo ago
GPL says "You may do this." This file says "You may be licensed" -- that is not an action I am able to take, that is an action they either do, or don't. It's not the same.

sowbug 8mo ago

Are there any instances where a fork of a project has altered the license language for the purpose of reducing this kind of ambiguity? Either the original license grant is expansive, so the clarification is welcome and the fork will become the standard unless/until the modification is upstreamed, or else the grant is restrictive, so the fork language is invalid, and the grantors face the risk of laches or other equitable defenses if they don't stop the fork from offering the less ambiguous interpretation that grantees rely on. Fork as legal test case, if you will.

scotty79 8mo ago

I think more software people should be doing that. Just confusing the hell out or lawyers (armchair and proper).

emacdona 8mo ago

I am not a lawyer. My reading of the license is: either (a) buy a license or (b) be bound by the AGPLv3 -- with _very_ limited exceptions. So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? If so, I have no sympathy.

throwaway150 8mo ago
> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither > (a) want to buy a license nor > (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? No and no. People first want to know what the correct licenses are even before deciding which licensing path (including buying a commercial license) to take. You don't just commit to buying a commercial license without first understanding your options and comparing those options. People want to know what those options are. People are upset that a company cannot get the simple matter of open source licensing right. It's the easiest kind of licensing. But they cannot get it right. These upset people would now never want to do business with this company. People who would have otherwise been happy to purchase a commercial license would also stay away from the company because messing up open source licensing is a red flag. Who knows what kind of mess would be present in their commercial contracts. Yes, you can hire a lawyer to sort it out but I'd much rather do business with a company where I'm confident that the company is acting in good faith even before lawyers get involved. > If so, I have no sympathy. Your sympathy means nothing to me when I am picking vendors for my business. When I'm picking my vendors, I'm going to rely on professional legal expertise available to me, not the sympathies of random strangers on the internet.
- emacdona 8mo ago
  >> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b) be bound by the AGPLv3? > No and no. [...] >> If so, I have no sympathy. > Your sympathy means nothing to me Well, regardless... via the rules of logical implication, you have it.
  - emacdona 8mo ago

mring33621 8mo ago

Ok, their license is pretty strange: https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE... MIT for binaries distributed by Mattermost. But, if you compile it yourself: GNU AGPL v3.0 XOR Paid-for Enterprise License Then, for some odd reason, they append the text of Apache License Version 2.0!!!

throwaway89201 8mo ago
The frontend parts are explicitly and correctly licensed under the Apache license in the header of the same file.
- mring33621 8mo ago
  Ooh, I see it now, right in the middle: "...You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License v2.0...."
- godelski 8mo ago
  They also have a FAQ: https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.html https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.htm... Note that they have multiple licenses. This isn't entirely uncommon. The difference licenses apply to different things.

dang 8mo ago

Submitted title was "Mattermost say they will not clarify what license the project is under", which is against the site guidelines: "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize." (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) I'm open to a different title than "LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant", which is obscure enough to qualify as misleading if not linkbait. However, its replacement should be an accurate, neutral title that preferably uses representative language from the article itself (https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=representative%20article%20by%3Adang&sort=byDate&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...). Re the "don't editorialize" bit in the rules: If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...

junon 8mo ago

They want a business of some sort, not AGPL I'd assume. It doesn't look nefarious, just misguided. However a license switch will cause another hellstorm so I suppose they're in a tough spot.

wodenokoto 8mo ago

So the license starts out saying you can use the compiled binaries under MIT and the source code as either AGPL or you can receive a special license. Then it goes on with the Apache license text.