|
Top-level
 @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. -> 4 comments
@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 |
Gregory's Server
@serebit @element @matrix
We should observe how Element behaves – but also realise what they _can_ do now.