Gregory's Server@matrix Dear, @element, please be honest:
You write that you want a CLA
> giving Element the right to distribute the contribution commercially
.
When you write "commercially” you mean “proprietary”. Because FLOSS can always be utilised for _all_ cause, including commercial ones and selling it. This is what e.g sets it apart from pretending licenses like the BSL which want to claim all commercial activities just for a single stakeholder.
|
Top-level
 26 comments
@schmittlauch @matrix Have edited the blog post to try to clarify: "giving Element the right to license the contribution commercially to third party proprietary forks so we can use it to help fund Matrix core development in future".  @element @schmittlauch @matrix In other words, allow Element to make money by selling code that I have contributed (without receiving any reimbursement for it) to third parties, who may then use it in a closed-source product. Did I get that right? @scy @schmittlauch @matrix yup, precisely. so if that isn't an option for you, don't sign the CLA and maintain your code in a separate tree. The impact to contributors sucks, but the alternative sucks even more. @element @schmittlauch @matrix You do realize that most open source contributors only contribute because they have a strong belief in open source & want their code to _stay_ FLOSS? I mean, I get it, Element is struggling to make ends meet, so you're taking a gamble that being the biggest player in the Matrix ecosystem will make people contribute anyway, and that the community doesn't have the resources to maintain Synapse & Dendrite on their own. You could just ask for donations, you know? @scy @element @schmittlauch @matrix "You could just ask for donations, you know?" They have been doing that for more than 6 years, now. There are many that have donated - including me, however generally the amount of donations they received is pretty underwhelming. If at all, enough for an one man show.  @element @schmittlauch @matrix What the fuck? Really? So the codebase being AGPL is just a marketing stunt to hide the CLA that lets you give others' contributions away as proprietary software? @serebit @schmittlauch @matrix the whole blog post is explaining that if we don't find a way to get proprietary forks to contribute back to the core project, either by releasing their code as AGPL, or buying a dual license, then core dev from Element is existentially at risk. It's far from ideal, but it's the least worst solution we can find. @element @schmittlauch @matrix In plain terms, you're forking Synapse to profit off of it with the vague assertion that you'll give money back to the Foundation. Eat shit. @serebit @schmittlauch @matrix in plain terms: we wrote 90%+ of Synapse and we're trying to find ways to get to break-even so we can keep working on it, otherwise it's game over. @element @schmittlauch @matrix You may have wrote 90% of Synapse, but it really must hurt to have made open contributions that you couldn't directly profit off of... The language from the Foundation isn't ambiguous, you used your position as leverage to take these projects out from under their steward, ENTIRELY to make money off of them. I don't care how you justify it, it's unacceptable. @serebit @schmittlauch @matrix but we're not profiting at all. we are literally not profitable, and given that the Foundation doesn't get enough donations to fund the work, we have to try other means to keep the lights on. @serebit @element @matrix To be fair, the maintenance burden of having to refactor downstream changes – even when based on a proprietary relicensed codebase – can be a good motivation to upstream your changes as FLOSS already. Companies use AGPL differently in that regard. Oracle is more on the "better by a proprietary license, or else…" side, others do encourage the FLOSS route more. -> We should observe how Element behaves – but also realise what they _can_ do now. @schmittlauch @serebit @matrix we could have sprouted a proprietary fork of Synapse at any point and stopped developing it as FOSS (due to the Apache license). But we have zero desire to do so. If there's a hack we can use to force us to keep the project FOSS as AGPLv3 then we'll use it. However, we're still going to dual-license in order to try to keep the lights on. @element @schmittlauch @matrix Sure, until you start making a profit. Then "so we can keep the lights on" turns into "so we can shore up our reserves", then "so we can fund an IPO", then "so we can keep our promises to our shareholders". Have you really not noticed the patterns in the industry? Are you that certain that you're immune to them? @serebit @element @schmittlauch @matrix @serebit @element @schmittlauch @matrix Well, they could already do that under the Apache-2.0 license, but now they will be the _only_ ones who can do that. @maxgot @element @schmittlauch @matrix Yes, and that should be concerning. What was once an equal agreement to avoid making the software proprietary is now Element holding the keys to the castle and pinkie swearing that they'll be responsible. @serebit @maxgot @schmittlauch @matrix if there's a way to lock the code AGPLv3 (while letting us dual-license it to AGPL-allergic people) then hopefully that solves the concern; we're investigating. @element @maxgot @schmittlauch @matrix Poison-pill the CLAs, which has worked for keeping Qt open-source. For a given project, if you attempt to take the upstream repository closed source, it immediately transfers ownership back to the Matrix Foundation and you void all prior license agreements. Get a lawyer to make that clause ironclad, codify it in the CLA, and I'd be satisfied. @element Thank you. While I am still wary about the incentives this brings for encouraging FLOSS back-contributions vs. selling proprietary licenses (see the OwnCloud-NextCloud story), I guess the biggest concern of most CLA critics is the ability of element pulling a HashiCorp and going proprietary again. @schmittlauch honestly, we only found about the slint/signal trick via the discussion here today. it looks really interesting, as there is zero desire to pull a hashicorp - we're literally trying to do the opposite. |
@schmittlauch
Technically correct, but in practice it means you either make your modifications available to your users or you contribute financially. (basically supporting the development)