Element informed the Foundation that it will be forking Synapse and Dendrite: matrix.org/blog/2023/11/06/fut…
We'll do our best to answer your questions, address concerns, and find a path forward together.
The future of Synapse and Dendrite
Matrix, the open protocol for secure decentralised communicationsJosh Simmons (matrix.org)
reshared this
Nelson Chu Pavlosky
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Haven't we learned anything from repeated CLA debacles? I welcome the license change to AGPLv3, but making future contributors sign a CLA means Element could change the license again to be no longer open source. Then the community would have to fork it again, like with Terraform and OpenTofu.
I'm with Drew on this: drewdevault.com/2023/07/04/Don…
Seriously, don't sign a CLA
drewdevault.comreshared this
Ryuno-Ki and jonny reshared this.
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Nelson Chu Pavlosky • • •@skyfaller Indeed, we'd prefer that these projects remain under our auspices, open source, and unencumbered by a CLA.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Foundation's mission and rules forbid us from acting for the private benefit of any party, and as such we cannot contribute anything that requires us to sign a CLA wherein the assignment is made to a privately-held entity.
We are committed to building up the open source commons around Matrix.
Jonathan Frederickson
in reply to Nelson Chu Pavlosky • • •@skyfaller I agree in general, but they could have relicensed right now to a proprietary license too, so the CLA doesn't really give them any new rights that they didn't have before.
That said, the Element team being the primary contributors to the project is itself concerning. I do think that the structure of the Matrix protocol itself limits their ability to do harm thankfully.
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Jonathan Frederickson • • •@jfred @skyfaller We think this is a great opportunity for the ecosystem to shine, and highlight that the spec remains open source *and* under open governance – though we will also be the first to note that our governance needs improvement.
Broadly speaking, we find it concerning when any major open source project is dominated by a single contributor. We look forward to channeling our resources to help improve the size and diversity of the contributor ecosystem in the months and years ahead!
Suguru Hirahara
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •@jfred @skyfaller
Have you ever contemplated why the Matrix contributor ecosystem has not grown as much as you expected so far? Don't you think not-so-good communications by those who both contribute to specs and Element might have discouraged possible contributors from even enter the ecosystem? For example, check the discussion full of mistrust and resentment: github.com/vector-im/element-m….
I guess it is a matter which cannot be solved by changing licenses or replacing DCO with CLA, etc.
Possibility to define our own emoji · Issue #339 · vector-im/element-meta
GitHubnetworkException
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •a very bad sign for the whole ecosystem I fear :/
I hope this benefits independent implementations more in the end, mature homeservers made by the community
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to networkException • • •@networkexception While we hope that Element's decision has the intended impacts for them and the broader ecosystem, we do also hope this shines a spotlight on the rest of the ecosystem.
We want to see a world in which the Matrix ecosystem includes multiple stable, popular open source implementations of servers and clients.
tanon
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • •Lambda :neofox_flag_nb:
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Lambda :neofox_flag_nb: • • •Steven Sandoval
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •“Future contributions to Element’s forks will use the reciprocal AGPLv3 license, —”
😀
“—with a Contributor License Agreement (CLA).”
☹️
#fsf #foss
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Steven Sandoval • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Thank you all for your questions!
It's still early on the West Coast of the US where our Managing Director is located, so we're just getting started here.
We'll begin responding to folks shortly.
Booteille reshared this.
[[nodiscard]] constexpr auto Herz() noexcept -> 🐰
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •I have two questions. Given the following:
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to [[nodiscard]] constexpr auto Herz() noexcept -> 🐰 • • •@herzenschein To your questions:
1) The Foundation itself never did maintenance or development of either project.
2) Assets refers to the copyrights, or at least those which Element was entitled to assign to the Foundation in the first place.
3) Infrastructure here refers to the GitHub org, repo, and communications infrastructure including Matrix rooms and their moderation.
4) Our understanding is that the forks will live under a GH org belonging to Element.
Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Lars Marowsky-Brée 😷 • • •@larsmb The Foundation's position is that we'd prefer the projects remain under our auspices and unencumbered by a CLA.
As Element is the one implementing a CLA on their forks of the projects, this is a question that only they can answer.
Matthew Booe
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •I think the Matrix team has done a lot of things right over the years, and think this change should be met with that in mind. I do have a few questions:
1. My reading of the CLA is it's necessary for Element to offer proprietary versions of the software or integration with proprietary changes that would normally violate AGPLv3. Is that correct?
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Matthew Booe • • •@mirdaki Yes, thank you. We also believe the historical perspective is important in understanding what is happening and what may follow.
With regards to the reasoning for the CLA, our position is that we'd prefer the projects to remain under our auspices and unencumbered by a CLA – and that Element is the only one who can answer the question as to why they're implementing one.
Matthew Booe
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Matthew Booe • • •Matthew Booe
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Matthew Booe • • •@mirdaki There are several dimensions to this that are difficult to boil down into a thread. Expect more comms from us soon.
Our view is that the Foundation's role in developing open source software is to fill gaps that others are not addressing.
We would both need to (1) see a gap and (2) have the resources to fund development.
Today, we don't have the funds to even meet current obligations. Fixing that and actualizing open governance are the first big projects of our Managing Director.
Element
in reply to Matthew Booe • • •Matthew Booe
in reply to Element • • •Max Goodhart
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Ryuno-Ki
Unknown parent • • •@TheEvilSkeleton @skyfaller So does Qt.
If your intention is to commercialise, perhaps consult with them.
qt.io/community/legal-contribu…
Ryuno-Ki
Unknown parent • • •@catraxx @privateger Note, that (A)GPL does not exclude the option to sell a product. The source code has to be attached.
(The customer could then pass it forward free of charge).
yuvipanda
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to yuvipanda • • •@yuvipanda We're not happy with the changes and our stance is that we'd prefer the projects to remain under our auspices, unencumbered by a CLA.
Given the nature of open source, there's nothing we can do to stop any individual or entity from forking our projects, and that's true of projects at other open source foundations too.
We will be doubling down on our efforts to implement open governance and cultivate a contributor base with a diversity of employers and lived experiences.
Element
in reply to yuvipanda • • •yuvipanda
in reply to Element • • •@element @matrix@mastodon.matrix i know it is probably a difficult time at element too, so i hope y’all end up ok.
That said, apache was not a for-profit company with millions of dollars of VC funding. Not an apt comparison.
The Matrix.org Foundation
Unknown parent • • •Mat
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Mat • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
Unknown parent • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
Unknown parent • • •yuvipanda
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Éibhear 🔭
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •This post starts off with "Last week, Element informed the Foundation that it will be forking Synapse and Dendrite."
It reads like this was news to The Matrix Foundation, and that the foundation was not prepared for it.
Is that true? If so, it's very distressing -- If Element and The Matrix Foundation are in dispute, it leaves us who are committed to using and promoting #Matrix confused as to what and who to support. I remember the first days of the XFree86/X.org, the OpenOffice/LibreOffice and the Owncloud/Nextcloud forks, and things we're not pleasant.
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •@eibhear There had been rumblings that it was a possibility, but it remained in the abstract and so we at the Foundation kept our limited bandwidth focused elsewhere.
Last week was just when the decision was made, and when it became necessary for us to deploy resources to respond to the change. 1/2
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •@eibhear Element remains the Foundation's largest supporter. Though there is tension, especially when it comes to matters like this where our positions diverge, we do not expect to be in conflict on more fundamental levels.
A meaningful difference between this situation and the others you mention is that the spec remains open source and under open governance.
While we hope this change has Element's intended results for the ecosystem, this _is_ a time for the rest of the ecosystem to shine. 2/2
haise
in reply to Éibhear 🔭 • • •#foundation-office:matrix.org join the foundation office room and you'll see discussions on how to improve it and how to stop this from happening in the future with other projects element donate :)
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to haise • • •debc653e-a1ba-418f-80cc-66274dc2d9fb
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •guys you can't implement a reliable server for your unreliable protocol.
How about not forking anything and finish what you already got
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to debc653e-a1ba-418f-80cc-66274dc2d9fb • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
Unknown parent • • •@err931 Absolutely, unequivocally yes.
The spec remains open source and under open governance – noting that Synapse and Dendrite only ever checked one of those boxes. And indeed, the soon-to-be-formed Governing Board will be a significant improvement to current open governance of the spec and the Foundation.
That said, the Governing Board is just the next big step. We intend to continue taking steps to actualize community governance and further enhance the open source commons around Matrix.
Albin Larsson
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Albin Larsson • • •ASF Contributor Agreements
www.apache.orghttps://sns.azkware.net/users/9ij33nxppkpak5o5
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to • • •@csolisr We have every reason to believe the forks will remain interoperable, in part because that is a core selling point for Element.
But should that change, the Foundation's role remains: to act as a neutral custodian and to nurture Matrix as efficiently as possible as a single unfragmented standard, for the greater benefit of the whole ecosystem.
With that in mind, it would absolutely be within our scope to invest in compatibility should we need to.
Arjen P. de Vries Timmers 🕊️
Unknown parent • • •@Greg but the target would not be the foundation, but the company.
(I don't understand why the foundation would not remain the owner but switch to the license Element would like the code to have, instead of requiring a fork by Element? What's the role of the foundation in the years to come, if they don't own the codebase?)
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Arjen P. de Vries Timmers 🕊️ • • •@arjen @Greg We can't see the reply this was made to so can't respond to original question, but we do want to weigh in on the role of the Foundation:
The Foundation's role is first and foremost to steward the spec under an open source license and open governance.
When it comes to the role of the Foundation in software development, our stance is that our role is to fill gaps that others are not addressing – which is one reason our R&D is currently focused on Trust and Safety.
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Today is a tough day, and we'd like to thank everyone for the outpouring of support and insightful questions.
We're keeping a log of questions and concerns, will be sharing more answers as we have them.
Keep in mind:
The Matrix spec is the beating heart of the ecosystem. It is under an open source license, and subject to open governance that's slated to become more open when we elect our first Governing Board next year.
#Matrix is bigger than any one or two projects.
n0toose
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to n0toose • • •@n0toose This isn't a breakup with Element, but nonetheless you can expect the Foundation to put in a serious effort to gather feedback so that our efforts are appropriately targeted.
On top of being the right thing to do, our resources are too scarce to spend time on solutions that aren't responsive to known issues.
Smol Bean [OLD] (moved to https://evil.social/@shrimple)
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Smol Bean [OLD] (moved to https://evil.social/@shrimple) • • •@chocolatefossty We definitely like that the new license they chose is still open source! AGPLv3 seems very appropriate, though we'd prefer for the projects to remain with the Foundation and without a CLA.
The net of all this may end up being a boon for Element and/or the ecosystem, that remains to be seen.
In the meantime, it definitely adds to the workload for the Foundation – in navigating the changes, and in building trust in our work.
erdnaxeli
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Doing specs is good, but synapse is the only viable project out there and now that they took full control over it they will have zero incentive to wait for specs to be written before implementing features.
You will either be on synapse + element or you will be a second class citizen.
That's a shame, I used to like this project.
Malte
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •hamburghammer
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Is there a reason for choosing CLA instead of a DCO, if you don't have the intention to relicense?
Isn't AGPL restictiv enough?
The next step after AGPL is a license like BSO...
Seems to me like the Element investors want there money back - faire enough - but why try to stab future contributors in the back 🤷♂️
The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to hamburghammer • • •@hamburghammer The Foundation's stance is that we'd prefer these projects to remain under our auspices and unencumbered by a CLA.
Only Element can answer why they've decided to implement a CLA with their forks.
hamburghammer
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •thank you for the answer and you're right, I should have directed the qestion directly to Element.
Thanks for your work on shaping the communication of tomorrow.
Element
in reply to hamburghammer • • •On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software
www.fsf.orgTrolli Schmittlauch 🦥
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •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.
Hex
in reply to Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥 • • •@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)
Element
in reply to Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥 • • •scy
in reply to Element • • •@element @schmittlauch 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?
Element
in reply to scy • • •scy
in reply to Element • • •@element @schmittlauch 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?
Campbell Jones
in reply to Element • • •Element
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •Albin Larsson
in reply to Element • • •@element but doesn't this situation exist solely because Element took VC money not because it did not have a CLA?
@serebit @schmittlauch @matrix
Campbell Jones
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •@element @schmittlauch 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.
Element
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •Campbell Jones
in reply to Element • • •Element
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •Campbell Jones
in reply to Element • • •Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •@serebit @element 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.
->
Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥
in reply to Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥 • • •We should observe how Element behaves – but also realise what they _can_ do now.
Element
in reply to Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥 • • •Campbell Jones
in reply to Element • • •Maxwell
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •Campbell Jones
in reply to Maxwell • • •Element
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •Campbell Jones
in reply to Element • • •Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥
in reply to Element • • •You now mention this concern as well in the blog post; have any countermeasures for the CLA been discussed? Like e.g. github.com/slint-ui/slint/disc…
guarantee FOSS licensing of SixtyFPS · slint-ui/slint · Discussion #244
GitHubElement
in reply to Trolli Schmittlauch 🦥 • • •Albin Larsson
in reply to Element • • •@element why don't you have a similar CLA to that of Qt then? In which contributors only grant you a license not copyright...
@schmittlauch
ex_06
in reply to Element • • •Element
Unknown parent • • •Campbell Jones
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Campbell Jones • • •@serebit Indeed, the Foundation's stance is that we'd prefer the projects remain actively maintained under our auspices and unencumbered by a CLA.
We're glad they chose an open source license, and we also think this is a moment for the rest of the ecosystem to shine.
Ultimately, this is a point in favor of protocols, as the spec is the beating heart of Matrix and remains open source *and* under open governance that will only get more open as we seat the first elected Governing Board next year.
reaply Pop&NetBSD🚩
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Jason Bowen
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •I'd like to continue to remind people that IRC still exists.
Come join us on @liberachat or OFTC
#irc #irssi
chebra
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •Mendy
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation • • •The Matrix.org Foundation
in reply to Mendy • • •