Hello, Mattermost is currently listed as being under AGPL/Apache, but it is seemingly more complicated than this: Some directories (server/templates, server/i18n, server/public, /webapp) are under ...
The contention is that Mattermost say it’s licensed under AGPL but then they add conditions which are incompatible with that license. So it seems they want to give appearance of AGPL but not give the actual rights that come with it. So therefore it’s not AGPL.
You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways:
Under the Free Software Foundation’s GNU AGPL v3.0, subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or […]
I read it as releasing the binaries under MIT and granting people an AGPL license for the (non-enterprise) code. Some read it as not granting you the full AGPL rights.
To me, the fact that they advertise Mattermost as “open-source” and the statement on the “reciprocal license” above indicates that Mattermost also reads this as an AGPL license grant. However, they don’t seem to be interested in fully clarifying the license situation. But, I think they would have a very hard time to argue in court that this license doesn’t allow AGPL forks. And I haven’t seen any evidence of them acting against any of the existing forks.
AGPL is restrictive so actually having MIT is a backup option weakens the AGPL license. And in particular having the ability to ship closed source binaries if you wish to, under a commercial license, means AGPL means jack shit here to those who want everything to be copyleft
My understanding was (perhaps wrong?) that the “Mattermost Team Edition” is offered under the AGPL, and then the “Enterprise” Editions (starting with the “Entry Edition”) have additional restrictions (including the 10k message limit in the “Entry Edition” that everyone’s been talking about). They do a good job of hiding the “Team Edition” (it’s almost like the don’t really want to have to offer an open-source editions… 🤔), but it is there if you can find it. https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/editions-and-offerings.html#mattermost-team-edition
This seems like your standard open core/dual licensing, CLA controlled BS where open source is indeed treated like an inconvenience… Perhaps with more obfuscation than on average. Probably not really adding requirements on top of AGPL as such but they seem to be offering multiple releases under a more restrictive license either because they have the rights so they can do dual licensing or they keep certain components proprietary and don’t offer those with the team/community editions.
So yeah, probably within their legal rights and I assume there is still a codebase/release that you can use under the terms of the AGPL but they do seem to be looking for ways to make it be used as little as possible.
I could be wrong if the AGPL and other open source parts aren’t enough for actually compiling a functional version of this but this is what it mostly looks like to me.
The contention is that Mattermost say it’s licensed under AGPL but then they add conditions which are incompatible with that license. So it seems they want to give appearance of AGPL but not give the actual rights that come with it. So therefore it’s not AGPL.
I think the problem is that the license grant (that has been in place for a decade) is not that clear.
I read it as releasing the binaries under MIT and granting people an AGPL license for the (non-enterprise) code. Some read it as not granting you the full AGPL rights.
To me, the fact that they advertise Mattermost as “open-source” and the statement on the “reciprocal license” above indicates that Mattermost also reads this as an AGPL license grant. However, they don’t seem to be interested in fully clarifying the license situation. But, I think they would have a very hard time to argue in court that this license doesn’t allow AGPL forks. And I haven’t seen any evidence of them acting against any of the existing forks.
AGPL is restrictive so actually having MIT is a backup option weakens the AGPL license. And in particular having the ability to ship closed source binaries if you wish to, under a commercial license, means AGPL means jack shit here to those who want everything to be copyleft
which conditions on top of AGPL are they adding?
My understanding was (perhaps wrong?) that the “Mattermost Team Edition” is offered under the AGPL, and then the “Enterprise” Editions (starting with the “Entry Edition”) have additional restrictions (including the 10k message limit in the “Entry Edition” that everyone’s been talking about). They do a good job of hiding the “Team Edition” (it’s almost like the don’t really want to have to offer an open-source editions… 🤔), but it is there if you can find it. https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/editions-and-offerings.html#mattermost-team-edition
This seems like your standard open core/dual licensing, CLA controlled BS where open source is indeed treated like an inconvenience… Perhaps with more obfuscation than on average. Probably not really adding requirements on top of AGPL as such but they seem to be offering multiple releases under a more restrictive license either because they have the rights so they can do dual licensing or they keep certain components proprietary and don’t offer those with the team/community editions.
So yeah, probably within their legal rights and I assume there is still a codebase/release that you can use under the terms of the AGPL but they do seem to be looking for ways to make it be used as little as possible.
I could be wrong if the AGPL and other open source parts aren’t enough for actually compiling a functional version of this but this is what it mostly looks like to me.
deleted by creator