Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 15:56:48 JST Strypey

   • Element

   Following the example of GitLab and other VC-funded open source companies, @element goes 'open source almost everything' with "Synapse Pro";

   "Synapse itself remains open source, and Element will continue to develop it proactively, just as it has for the last 10 years ... Available under a commercial license, Synapse Pro will help fund and accelerate the continued open source development of Synapse for the benefit of all of Matrix."

   https://element.io/blog/synapse-pro-slashes-costs-for-running-nation-scale-matrix-deployments/

   #matrix #Element #funding #VC

   • Abhiseck Paira :gnu: repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 15:56:46 JST Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿

     in reply to

     • Element

     @strypey @element big sigh. Sad. Tom Preston-Werner's 'open source almost everything' https://tom.preston-werner.com/2011/11/22/open-source-everything.html is one of the most depressingly self-serving things I ever read. It assumes that only proprietary software has value. Which is flat out wrong. My career attests to that.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:41:19 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element
     • OS-SCI
     @strypey @lightweight @os_sci @element Please be correct with your interjections.
     
     Copyright is not owned, as if it was it would never expire - copyright is held by a copyright holder.
     
     The copyright holder cannot infringe their own license, but they cannot revoke say previously licensed GPLv3-or-later and typically what happens with actual free software projects is that the last free version is forked.
     
     Many copyleft projects under say the GPLv3+ often import code from copyright holders under the GPLv3+, which is effective at preventing the project from legally being made proprietary.
   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:41:21 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element
     • OS-SCI

     (1/?)

     @lightweight
     > weak 'open source' (as opposed to Copyleft) license is essentially saying "we want the option of closing this codebase at some future point"

     If I may copyright nerd for a moment;

     As long as any outside contributors assign copyright to the company, the project license can't prevent that, even with a copyleft clause. The copyright owner doesn't need a license to use, so public license conditions don't bind them.

     @os_sci @element

   • Embed this notice
     Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:41:22 JST Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿

     in reply to

     • Element
     • OS-SCI

     @os_sci @strypey @element yes. A weak 'open source' (as opposed to Copyleft) license is essentially saying "we want the option of closing this codebase at some future point"... or pandering to someone else who might. That should greatly limit community participation in a project.

   • Embed this notice
     OS-SCI (os_sci@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:41:23 JST OS-SCI

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element

     @lightweight @strypey @element sure also the MIT license says a lot. It doesn't protect against Open Washing and that's exactly what they did with GitHub.
     https://os-sci.com/blog/our-blog-posts-1/why-is-open-washing-a-thing-14

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:08 JST 翠星石

     in reply to
     @strypey >the Linux kernel
     This reinforces the confusion that Linux is more than a kernel.
     
     Please write; "the kernel, Linux", "Linux, the kernel" or just "Linux" to mean Linux.
     
     
     It is impossible to simultaneously comply with the requirements of the GPLv2-only and the bundled proprietary software, thus you are obliged to not distribute the proprietary version of Linux, otherwise you immediately and permanently lose your license.
     
     Of course GNU Linux-libre can be distributed under the terms of the GPLv2-only.
   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:10 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     (2/2)

     It's like how all the core code of the Linux kernel is libre, but most of the versions distributed are proprietary, because to use them you are obliged to follow the license conditions of the binary blobs bundled with them.

     Similarly, most GNU/Linux distros are proprietary, because while the majority of the code they're compiled from is libre, you can't run their without implicitly agreeing to the license terms of any proprietary binaries bundled with them.

   • Embed this notice
     OS-SCI (os_sci@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:12 JST OS-SCI

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element
     • Alex Hoyau

     @strypey @lexoyo @lightweight @element How can anything which has a recognized foss license be proprietary?

   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:12 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element
     • Alex Hoyau
     • OS-SCI

     (1/2)

     @os_sci
     > How can anything which has a recognized foss license be proprietary?

     To access the Signal network you are obligated to use the server and apps binaries they offer. If you make use of Freedoms 2 and 3 to fork their app, or Freedom 1 to create your own, and you connect your app to their server, you're breaking their network license. So while the *code* is libre, the network is proprietary.

     Does this make sense?
     
     #Signal

     @lexoyo @lightweight @element

   • Embed this notice
     OS-SCI (os_sci@mastodon.social)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:15 JST OS-SCI

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element
     • Alex Hoyau

     @lexoyo @lightweight @strypey @element Swiss did this. All code paid for with public money needs to be foss. Also the EU is trying. In the Netherlands each ministry has an OSPO. The main problem is the workforce, they want the proprietary shit. Have this problem at home too. Need to have WhatsApp because of my wife and daughter refusing to use Signal or Telegram

   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:15 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element
     • Alex Hoyau
     • OS-SCI

     (1/2)

     @os_sci
     > Need to have WhatsApp because of my wife and daughter refusing to use Signal or Telegram

     A shame their choice is WhatSapp, but good on them refusing fake solutions like TeleScam and Signal.

     Any chat platform that isn't part of a multivendor, standards-based network is a proprietary chat platform. Even if all the code used in their deployment is published or linked, under libre licenses.

     @lexoyo @lightweight @element

   • Embed this notice
     Alex Hoyau (lexoyo@framapiaf.org)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:16 JST Alex Hoyau

     in reply to

     • Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
     • Element
     • OS-SCI

     @lightweight @os_sci @strypey @element governments should go further and have a long term vision that require all their software to be free/libre to invest directly in development, customization, and support—not in marketing, business expansion, or dividends for investors

     Plus this would retain the freedom to move to a different service provider if the current one no longer fits their needs.

     And of course software obsolescence, sovereignty, security, education...

   • Embed this notice
     Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿 (lightweight@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Friday, 27-Dec-2024 21:45:19 JST Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿

     in reply to

     • Element
     • OS-SCI

     @os_sci @strypey @element the only reason it's difficult to sustain some larger #libre projects (e.g. Copyleft) is because the market is stupid and continues to pay a mint to be monopolised by proprietary software vendors. Libre software would be quite sustainable *if the market rejected proprietary software*... or if regulators did. As a proxy for this, gov'ts could regulate to require open standards compliance for all software purchased by gov't. I wrote this about it: https://openstandards.nz

   • Embed this notice
     uexo (uexo@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 19:13:39 JST uexo

     in reply to

     • Element

     @strypey @element

     > The savings [...] are enormous, literally millions of euros if [...] deployments were built on Synapse Pro rather than Synapse.

     Got to love that the #Matrix protocol is so computationally expensive it costs millions of euros in public funding to run. How much more millions of euros would they be saving if they would off-the-shelf #XMPP servers instead?

   • Embed this notice
     Strypey (strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz)'s status on Saturday, 28-Dec-2024 19:13:39 JST Strypey

     in reply to

     • uexo

     (1/?)

     @uexo
     > Got to love that the Matrix protocol is so computationally expensive

     If you add enough XEPs to an XMPP server to do everything that a full Matrix server can do be default, the resulting protocol soup is no more computationally efficient than Matrix.

     djsumdog likes this.