Skip to main content


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.

Christine Lemmer-Webber reshared this.

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…

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.

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

in reply to networkException

to be fair, the fork in itself reflects reality and is very fair - element has (always) been the main force behind development.

Still taking ownership of the project entirely is pretty bad. It changes synapse (lefts face it, dendrite has been degraded to a playground) from being the forefront of a free, open source messaging ecosystem to an asset of the company, in the hope to get people to pay for developing it further I assume.

in reply to networkException

matrix protocol, ramlings, possible (bad) future
this ecosystem as a whole is way too dependent on element. This might be the wake up call? I really dont want it to die, at least some version meant for interoperability of huge companies will probably survive given the IETFs MIMI efforts but we would loose the tiny bit of free, partly (mostly?) self hosting community driven instant messaging infrastructure
in reply to networkException

matrix protocol, ramlings, possible (bad) future
@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.
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

#FOSS #fsf
in reply to Steven Sandoval

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

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

I have two questions. Given the following:

  • "Synapse and Dendrite have been under the auspices of the Foundation since 2019. Our role has been to hold the assets and provide some infrastructure."
  • "The vast majority of maintenance and development on these projects comes from folks working at Element."
  • I see that both Synapse and Dendrite are under the matrix-org namespace on Github.
  1. Could you elaborate a bit further on how much of current Synapse/Dendrite development is done by the Element/Foundation folks? What is "assets", "maintenance" and "infrastructure" in this case?
  2. Where would the forks be hosted, given the original projects are already on Github under matrix-org?
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.

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.

Neil Brown reshared this.

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.

reshared this

in reply to Éibhear 🔭

@eibhear
#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 :)
in reply to haise

@haise @eibhear YES! Thank you for plugging that room. We've been having great conversations there today.
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

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

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?

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.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

2. I understand Element is the primary driver of Matrix work and they should be have a sustainable path forward. And that the Foundation isn't funded enough to do development on it's own. I do worry moving the projects back under Element is a bad look for the ecosystem, since it heavily favors Element. Could you describe any circumstances (such as more foundation funding or active contributions for other entities) that would prompt moving the projects back under the 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.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

3. Is some of the motivation related to my first question (again, assuming I understand that correctly) the reason for moving the projects back under Element? If the projects were back under the Foundation's umbrella, could those needs also be satisfied somehow?
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

This seems like a reasonable way for Element to continue to sustainably fund development. The CLA gives Element unique power to sell exemptions from the AGPL copyleft requirements for these projects. If Element uses this privilege to grow Matrix as a whole, it seems like a win overall.
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.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

This makes me more interested than ever in other server implementations. How does one migrate from one to another? Are there resources on doing this? I'd like to move my small instance from Synapse to something else.
in reply to Mat

@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!
@Mat
Unknown parent

The Matrix.org Foundation
@bbhtt That's a question best directed at Element. The Foundation's position is that we'd prefer for the projects to remain under our auspices and unencumbered by a CLA.
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

in reply to TSource Engine Query

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

@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.
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

any idea what the role of the VC funding Element took in this decision? I think the first round was about 5 years ago…
Unknown parent

The Matrix.org Foundation

@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.

in reply to Albin Larsson

@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 apache.org/licenses/contributo…
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

Should we expect to see the upcoming fork of Synapse remaining compatible with the unforked Synapse servers, or will they potentially break away from the Matrix protocol? If so, would your version of Synapse add compatibility to said protocol forks into the Matrix standard as extensions?
in reply to Carlos Solís

@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.

Unknown parent

The Matrix.org Foundation

@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.

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?)

@Greg
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.

happyborg reshared this.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

If this is a breakup with Element, PLEASE go around and ask non-Element-affiliated contributors of the ecosystem as to what's going wrong if you want to foster some sort of diversity.
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.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

Why is it tough? The license changed for the better. I haven't heard anything else besides that, did something else happen?
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.

in reply to Smol Bean [OLD] (moved to https://evil.social/@shrimple)

@chocolatefossty

AGPL is good, but the CLA means they can take your contributions and do whatever they want. And only them, nobody else. It's a perfect way to take open-source contributions and monopolize their position while taking profit and not having to give anything back.

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.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

I don't fully understand the different licenses in this case. I think I get the overall dilemma. It reminds me of similar license discussions about profit/non-profit and how to keep actors on a competitive commodity market from exploiting commons. I think Dmitry Kleiner did some really important work with the idea of #copyfarleft that perhaps could be built on.
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 🤷‍♂️

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.

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.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

Dear, @element, please be honest:
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.
in reply to Campbell Jones :budgie:

@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.

in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

This is going in the wrong direction, and if it continues, I will lose all optimism.
in reply to The Matrix.org Foundation

why did they have to fork rather than having the foundation change to AGPLv3?
in reply to Mendy

@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.