element

element, 5 months ago

@glowl @matrix np. fwiw, Element (as a Matrix client) does not gate accessibility features, and aims for AAA high contrast by default - see https://element.io/blog/element-is-accessible-by-design/

element, 5 months ago

@chebra It's our CLA, not @matrix's, so you're complaining at the wrong org. No, the CLA doesn't let Element relicense arbitrarily at later time without consent of contributors - it'd have to stick with an OSI-approved FOSS license. Yes, the CLA lets Element build commercial features on top of those contributions; other folks wanting to do so will need an AGPL exception.

element, 7 months ago

@claudius we clearly should have finalised and published the CLA text alongside the announcement. the intention is categorically not to relicense further, but to allow us to sell agpl alternatives fo commercial forks.

element, 7 months ago

@hamburghammer @matrix we’re not trying to stab any contributors; the reason for the CLA is that need to be able to provide alternative licenses to commercial forks (as per https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions); this is the whole reason for the license shift.

element, 7 months ago

@mirdaki @matrix from the Element side: if the Foundation had sufficient funding to pay Element to maintain the projects, then there would be no reason to move them. But instead, this is an attempt to generate enough funding in general (i.e. from dual-licensing to commercial forks) to pay for their development.

element, 7 months ago

@yuvipanda @matrix frankly, it's an effort to keep the show on the road. it's not remotely intended to be a breach of trust, any more than (say) Apache forking the CERN httpd was.

element, 7 months ago

@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, 7 months ago

@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, 7 months ago

@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, 7 months ago

@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.

element, 7 months ago

@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, 7 months ago

@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, 7 months ago

@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.

element, 7 months ago

@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, 7 months ago

@mynacol this sounds like a really interesting approach, given we have zero intention to relicense further. we're looking into it.

element, 7 months ago

@joelselvaraj if you've made proprietary changes to Synapse, then you'll need to either open source them to your users or contact us for an alternative license which acts as an exception to AGPLv3.

element, 7 months ago

@f4grx the only reason for the CLA is not to relicense but to allow dual-licensing for selling AGPL exceptions.

element, 7 months ago

@jabberati @f4grx yeah, if only Matrix worked with existing standards bodies.... oh, wait, what's this? https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ralston-mimi-protocol-01

element, 7 months ago

@f4grx perhaps read the post. the intention is to be able to sell AGPL exceptions to 3rd party commercial forks, in order to fund the underlying dev.

element, 7 months ago

@astrojuanlu the CLA is there to let Element sell AGPL exceptions to proprietary forks to try to fund dev. It is not there to allow for relicensing in future.

element, 7 months ago

@lutindiscret Tchap and Eimis will need to comply with the AGPL or procure an AGPL exception. Neither currently support Element or Matrix financially (Tchap stopped after https://www.nextinpact.com/lebrief/71389/la-dinum-va-voir-son-budget-ampute-40-celui-detalab-plafonne-a-500-000 in April; Eimis never has supported to my knowledge). This is why we are moving to less permissive licensing.