[HN Gopher] Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation
___________________________________________________________________
Financial situation of the Matrix.org Foundation
Author : alohapersona3
Score : 100 points
Date : 2023-11-19 19:26 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| jMyles wrote:
| Nothing jumps out that immediately causes me consternation as
| either an occasional donor or an (even more) occasional user,
| except perhaps the extreme delays in responses from foundation
| leadership.
|
| I broadly like matrix best of the chat/comms frameworks, but I
| keep turning back to signal, telegram, and whatsapp because of
| network effects. So, if shifting some personal efforts to the
| for-profit org makes sense to core devs... I can't really fault
| them.
|
| Cheers to alohapersona for keeping the fire going on this issue.
| COGlory wrote:
| OK? What do we expect them to do with the money, exactly? As a
| donor, I would expect they fund the development of Matrix, which
| I believe Element is doing?
| zamalek wrote:
| EMS (New Vector Ltd.) is not the same thing as Element. It is
| the first-party SAAS offering of Element/Matrix. It would be
| like Terraform accepting donations, and paying Hashicorp.
|
| That being said, it's completely plausible that this is salary
| for development time. Being tight-lipped about it is suspicious
| though.
| alohapersona3 wrote:
| Luckily, it doesn't matter what individuals expect. There is
| written documentation on what the foundation is supposed to do
| or not to do: https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec-
| proposals/blob/mai...
|
| Notably, "Code Core Team members must arrange their own funding
| for their time", which I understand as such that the Foundation
| does not pay directly the developers (same as other standards
| organizations like IETF). That said, if it was decided that
| developers get paid by Matrix.org Foundation for developing
| Matrix.org clients and servers, I wonder how this process
| works, given that I highly doubt that developers of Conduit,
| Fractal or Quaternion received any of the funds of Matrix.org
| foundation.
|
| Main tasks of Matrix.org Foundation is maintaining the spec,
| documentation, owning IP, promotion and the matrix.org home
| server. The home server is "generously hosted" by UpCloud (i.e.
| is not using New Vector EMS), at least according to the
| matrix.org website.
|
| Looking again at MSC1779, I noticed it says that one function
| of The Matrix.org Foundation is "Owns the copyright of the
| reference implementations of Matrix (i.e. everything in
| https://github.com/matrix-org). By assigning copyright to the
| Foundation, it's protected against New Vector ever being
| tempted to relicense it." That protection apparently wasn't
| very effective, but also notably, New Vector and their
| leadership clearly have shown to not stand behind the goals of
| the Foundation. As the leadership of New Vector is also part of
| the leadership of the Foundation, I see some huge potential for
| COI here.
| psYchotic wrote:
| I have nothing interesting to contribute here, but I want to
| express my thanks to alohapersona3 for trying to hold the Matrix
| Foundation accountable!
| Laaas wrote:
| I assume they're paying for a service, probably developing
| Matrix?
|
| I would rather have them use the small amount of money they have
| on developing Matrix rather than explaining where each coin went.
|
| This comment seems relevant: https://github.com/matrix-
| org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...
| makomk wrote:
| This reply about how in reality there's very little benefit to
| the community from the copyright being assigned to the
| foundation is a lot more perceptive than that comment,
| especially now that exactly what it foresaw has come to pass:
| https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...
| Laaas wrote:
| What do you mean it has come to pass?
| makomk wrote:
| The server-side Matrix code developed by Element is no
| longer going to be released under the Apache 2 license.
| It's going to be dual-licensed AGPL/proprietary from now on
| and released from Element's own GitHub repositories with a
| CLA requiring copyright assignment to Element so they can
| use it in the proprietary version, and the foundation is
| dropping all development on the Apache 2 version since
| they're not interested in competing with Element. This was
| specifically to obstruct other companies from providing
| Matrix-based enterprise offerings. There was an
| announcement about it which made it onto HN a while back:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38162275
| danShumway wrote:
| What's interesting about this is that if the CLA didn't
| exist I would entirely support this move. The AGPL is
| (imo) a better license for a keeping a hosted project
| public and Open, it's good for things being built on top
| of Matrix's server implementation to be openly licensed.
| And the company is right that the Apache 2 license would
| not prevent them from taking the code in a proprietary
| direction later; Apache 2 allows that.
|
| But with a CLA, it becomes much easier for their code to
| move towards source-available.
|
| The thing is, a GPL or AGPL license _without_ a CLA would
| actually be a reasonable defense against closing down the
| software in the future, since it would block Element from
| being relicensed to something more restrictive without
| the permission of the copyright holders. Even if there is
| a legitimate need to sell exceptions, a CLA that gave the
| company a _limited_ right to sell specific exceptions
| would be better than full copyright assignment and would
| actually increase my trust in the project rather than
| worrying me.
| brunoqc wrote:
| Yeah. I got burned by a CLA before. Never again.
| dmacvicar wrote:
| NextCloud does exactly this: AGPL, no CLA.
|
| https://github.com/nextcloud/server#contribution-
| guidelines-
|
| >Nextcloud doesn't require a CLA (Contributor License
| Agreement). The copyright belongs to all the individual
| contributors. Therefore we recommend that every
| contributor adds the following line to the header of a
| file if they changed it substantially: > >@copyright
| Copyright (c) <year>, <your name> (<your email address>)
| grey_earthling wrote:
| Element requiring a CLA has only 1 practical effect:
| Element are effectively saying that in _their_ repo of
| Synapse /Dendrite, they won't integrate any copyleft code
| they can't relicense.
|
| Other organisations could still choose to maintain a repo
| of Synapse/Dendrite that integrates _any_ AGPL code,
| including all code released by Element.
|
| That might be a better upstream than Element! -- but it
| would take work. For it to happen, someone would need to
| do and/or fund that work.
| alohapersona3 wrote:
| If next there is "Synapse Pro" that is proprietary and
| sold by Element and includes features not present in the
| open source version of Synapse but relevant to company or
| government use of Matrix, the AGPL-only version of
| Synapse will lack those features. This will hinder
| companies that (potentially) require "Synapse
| Pro"-features from contributing to the AGPL-only version
| of Synapse. We have seen this happen before.
| joshsimmons wrote:
| Thanks for the tag on the GitHub issue and for being a persistent
| advocate for transparency. Transparency is something we should
| expect from any open source foundation, and I am committed to
| delivering on that as the Foundation's first Managing Director.
|
| That said, it is the weekend :-) I'm happy to address all of the
| concerns and questions, and you'll hear more from me tomorrow -
| both here and on GitHub.
| ajdude wrote:
| I'm very curious to see this point addressed:
|
| > According to the statement, the book value of cryptocurrency
| assets did not change between Oct 31, 2021 and Oct 31, 2022.
| This is questionable, to say it mild, given that there have
| been incoming cryptocurrency transactions publicly visible on
| the respective published blockchain addresses of The Matrix.org
| Foundation.
|
| https://github.com/matrix-org/matrix-spec/issues/571#issueco...
| joemazerino wrote:
| The owing balance of Vector is concerning because the loan's
| payment, interest or default has to be marked in the books.
|
| People think running a non profit is easier but its much more
| difficult considering external, anonymous stakeholders.
| Zetobal wrote:
| I am following the thread for years now and their financials were
| always a shitshow. I believe they never released anything on time
| or without the community begging for it. Well, except some fluff
| blog post at the end of the year without real data. I love Matrix
| but it's a fishy foundation. With this and Element not releasing
| server code under apache 2 anymore, it looks more and more like
| Element is going for entshitification.
|
| Edit: Well, Josh is here so he will again start to deflect for
| some weeks and hope everyone will just forget about it until the
| next merry go round. _sic_
| vilunov wrote:
| > Well, Josh is here so he will again start to deflect for some
| weeks and hope everyone will just forget about it until the
| next merry go round
|
| This has been my experience with how Matrix handles critique in
| general, e.g. the response to "why not matrix?" which left me
| disappointed. Looking at this, and also at low quality of the
| reference clients and servers, over-engineered protocols and
| the poor UX in general it does not convince me that Matrix is a
| good solution to consider.
| tentacleuno wrote:
| Why not Matrix? Here's one reason: it has incredibly hard-to-
| debug edge cases, and plenty of bugs. One of my favourites is
| the one where people are kicked out of your room at random,
| which was reported a year ago[0]. It wasn't fixed, however,
| because the head of the Matrix foundation (Matthew) didn't
| seem to like the issue being posted on Twitter.
|
| The reporter took down the tweet, and it's still now
| effectively abandoned (despite it still being an issue; I've
| spoken to quite a few mods about it). This is honestly really
| disappointing behaviour from a platform owner.
|
| [0]: https://github.com/matrix-org/synapse/issues/14481
| Arathorn wrote:
| wow, the pile-on is real tonight.
|
| I suggested that GrapheneOS stopped enumerating potential
| ways to attack Matrix rooms on Twitter if they actually
| wanted to discourage attacks.
|
| Meanwhile, that issue has not remotely been abandoned, and
| has continued to be worked on in private (given the risk it
| might have security impact) - although as it's a rare edge
| case without a known security impact, it's competing with a
| lot of the other work we do to support Matrix, hence slow
| progress; especially with highly constrained funding.
| meepmorp wrote:
| > wow, the pile-on is real tonight.
|
| I know it's incredibly hard to not take it personally
| when people call your baby ugly, but you're not helping
| things by being defensive. People seem to have issues
| with how you (as a company) handle bugs and criticism,
| and while it may not seem fair or accurate, at very
| least, it's likely that your company's responses
| contribute to the perception.
|
| If nothing else, it points out a communication problem.
| tentacleuno wrote:
| > wow, the pile-on is real tonight.
|
| My intent isn't to "pile-on"; it's to provide insight
| into the issues people have with Matrix. I understand
| that it's your creation, but judging by this and the
| GitHub thread, it seems like you get quite defensive in
| these situations. Ultimately, these are valid criticisms
| of the platform; people aren't personally attacking you
| or the project. Personally I commend what you've created.
|
| > I suggested that GrapheneOS stopped enumerating
| potential ways to attack Matrix rooms on Twitter if they
| actually wanted to discourage attacks.
|
| Well, the issue was posted above. The Graphene guy posted
| it on Twitter, and by doing so you claimed he "slagged
| [you] off"[0].
|
| > Meanwhile, that issue has not remotely been abandoned,
| and has continued to be worked on in private (given the
| risk it might have security impact) - although as it's a
| rare edge case without a known security impact, it's
| competing with a lot of the other work we do to support
| Matrix, hence slow progress; especially with highly
| constrained funding.
|
| This is the part I don't understand. If you're working on
| it in private, you acknowledge it may be a security risk
| (plus your use of the word "attack"), but you've also de-
| prioritized it because it's not a security risk?
|
| [0]: "what the hell is this? We have burnt a bunch of
| time investigating this and trying to help you on this
| today, and in return we get slagged off on twitter?!"
| https://github.com/matrix-
| org/synapse/issues/14481#issuecomm...
| joshsimmons wrote:
| I get that we're operating in a low trust environment, and you
| don't yet have any reason to trust me.
|
| I will say this: I'm not here to carry water for past
| performance. I _am_ here to build the foundation into the
| organization the community deserves, and I have a track record
| when it comes to making organizations more responsive to the
| communities they serve.
|
| Not only will I respond to the questions and concerns, I am
| actually working on systemic solutions that will provide
| transparency as a matter of course.
|
| Of course, these are just words for now. Judge me by my actions
| in the days and months ahead, and know that I do aim to earn
| your trust. Edited to add: *and I aim to build the foundation
| into the kind of organization that, by merit of its rules,
| processes, and community representation in governance, doesn't
| require us to be trusting in the first place.
| Zetobal wrote:
| I'll believe you when I see more than empty phrases but tbh I
| am over hyping up Element/Matrix, so do whatever you want.
| VoxPelli wrote:
| Josh has quite the track record from elsewhere, having eg
| served as president for the very Open Source Initiative
| itself, so I do think it's fair to give him time here
| pierat wrote:
| Put up (the financials and data), or shut up.
| gloryjulio wrote:
| Agree with that. Upvoted for the visibility. This issue has
| going on for years. No more excuses
| dang wrote:
| " _Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or
| linkbait; don 't editorialize._" -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| If you want to say what you think is important about an article,
| that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then
| your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's:
| https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
|
| (Submitted title was "Non-profit Matrix.org Foundation seems to
| be moving funds to for-profit Element")
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-19 23:02 UTC)