matrix

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@lambda This is definitely a good time for the rest of the ecosystem to shine!

matrix, 7 months ago

@networkexception Yes, there's broad agreement internally and externally that we want to see an ecosystem that has a more diverse contributor base and fundamentally doesn't hinge so much on a single vendor.

matrix, 7 months ago

@a1ba There are several entities in the mix here, and the Foundation isn't the one doing the forking.

matrix, 7 months ago

@captainepoch Yes, we're hearing a lot about that detail, and understandably so. The Foundation's position is that we'd prefer for the projects to remain under our auspices and unencumbered by a CLA.

matrix, 7 months ago

@baltakatei Indeed, the Foundation's position is that we'd prefer for the projects to remain under our auspices and unencumbered by a CLA.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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!

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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

matrix, 7 months ago

@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

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@mirdaki That is a good question that we don't have the answer to!

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@allpurposemat We don't have existing resources we can offer on migration, but we do think this is a moment for the rest of the ecosystem to shine!

matrix, 7 months ago

@abbe98 This question is best directed at Element or a legal expert, but we believe the relevant clause will answer your question. Sourced from the ICLA linked from https://www.apache.org/licenses/contributor-agreements.html

matrix, 7 months ago

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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@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.

matrix, 7 months ago

@Mendy While the Foundation could reasonably consider using AGPLv3 as its default license going forward, generally or for a specific project, the only proper way for the Foundation to do so would be to do it holistically and in service of the entire ecosystem – conversely, it'd be improper for us to make such a change at the behest of a single service provider.

matrix, 7 months ago

@lutindiscret We recommend asking Element for clarification 😄