@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.
@serebit@element@maxgot@schmittlauch@matrix Since Qt is explicitly mentioned: Have you considered the QPL instead of AGPLv3+CLA? This also gives you permission to include patches from others in your proprietary distribution - as long as you keep Synapse open source. This would address 2 of the major concerns: Signing a CLA and Element making Synapse fully proprietary.
On top of that, you could even have something like the KDE agreement, where if you fail to release source, the last release becomes MIT-licensed.
@serebit@element@maxgot@schmittlauch@matrix Since Qt is explicitly mentioned: Have you considered the QPL instead of AGPLv3+CLA? This also gives you permission to include patches from others in your proprietary distribution - as long as you keep Synapse open source. This would address 2 of the major concerns: Signing a CLA and Element making Synapse fully proprietary.
Gregory's Server
@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.