[HN Gopher] LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incor...
___________________________________________________________________
LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license
grant
Author : MallocVoidstar
Score : 145 points
Date : 2026-02-02 20:50 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| ggm wrote:
| > _at this time we are not entertaining any changes as such._
|
| Always wonder what leads people to write like this. What does "as
| such" add to the sentence? At least "at this time" is temporally
| conditional to the future, it has purpose.
|
| Entertaining is posh "thinking about" or "interested in" so had
| the merit of being one word in place of two but so is
| "considering"
|
| Are we not entertained?
| 1attice wrote:
| Well, it means no changes _intended as_ changes [pertaining to
| the topic at hand]; it implies there may be incidental
| alterations or differences, eg this issue might be addressed in
| a blanket legal revamp (whatever that's called) but, at least
| over this, they aren't pulling over the station wagon to argue
| with the screaming stakeholders in the back.
|
| It's what we used to call "load-bearing vagueness"
| ggm wrote:
| > _" load-bearing vagueness"_
|
| Stealing this. That's ACE!!
| awesome_dude wrote:
| It's good English, it has actual meaning (your thinking of "at
| this time" is only one interpretation, it more likely means
| "We're not entertaining changes of that kind/nature" )
| ggm wrote:
| Ah, so any changes they did entertain, would be changes, but
| they disclaim making changes _such as_ these for this
| purpose?
| supjeff wrote:
| i think it's just meant to add an air of poise and propriety as
| such
| plagiarist wrote:
| "I know I'm being unreasonable. But the impression I'd like to
| give is different than that."
| gowld wrote:
| Are you asking why the person who published code with an
| ambiguous license also answers questions ambiguously?
| whatshisface wrote:
| Are you asking why the person who indirectly implied a
| question about the meaning of an ambiguous statement would
| leave it to the subtext to suggest they suspected that the
| unclear motive of the author of an ambiguous license was to
| leave some room for interpretation?
| ggm wrote:
| Not as such, no. But I would entertain making a claim I
| was, should I become sufficiently enthused.
| BadBadJellyBean wrote:
| This would lead me to steer away from the project. They clearly
| like the way it is and that is unclear for everyone apart from
| maybe them. I am not even sure it benefits them though.
| constantcrying wrote:
| You should read the license, it seems somewhat insane to be
| honest:
| https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...
| wccrawford wrote:
| What do you think about it sounds insane?
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| It says you "may be licensed" to use the source code under
| AGPL v3.0, but never actually makes an unambiguous statement
| that suchandsuch code _is_ licensed under AGPL v3.0.
|
| The concept of MIT licensing a compiled software artifact,
| but not the code used to generate the artifact, is also
| extremely strange.
| mbauman wrote:
| Right, the correct way here is to simply grant _everyone_ a
| license to _everything_ under the terms of the AGPL (or
| whatever). You can then separately license portions under
| other terms.
|
| You don't need to note the commercial licensing option in
| the license itself; it's irrelevant to that grant. You just
| state that elsewhere.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Looks pretty logical to me...
|
| It is AGPL 3.0, except they give you slightly more rights with
| a promise not to enforce certain provisions in certain
| circumstances.
| Hamuko wrote:
| It's not AGPL 3.0. The binaries are MIT, the codebase (from
| where the MIT binaries are built from) is AGPL 3.0, except
| for the bits of the codebase that are Apache 2.0, and there's
| some kind of a promise about not enforcing a part of AGPL if
| you don't link to their platform directly and exclusively use
| the bits of the code that are Apache 2.0, and also don't make
| a modified version of the software. And also you can just
| license it commercially too.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| I'm already shutting down my private instance of Mattermost, no
| thank you. I'm thinking of Zulip, at least they aren't pulling
| this shenanigans.
| CuriouslyC wrote:
| That seems to be what most slack abandoners end up on.
| pixelpoet wrote:
| I run a Zulip server and it's pretty good. The way they
| organise channels is extremely convoluted unfortunately (I wish
| they would just use absolutely standard channels layout like
| every other chat, and have everyone able to see them on join!)
| but well, beggars can't be choosers.
| tazjin wrote:
| People go through all this trouble to host convoluted chat
| systems, and all this time IRC is right there. There's modern
| servers like Ergo and modern clients like Halloy (or for the
| JavaScript addicts: Convos, The Lounge, Kiwi, ...) providing
| all the multi-device history sharing and emoji reactions you
| could need. All on top of a super simple, extremely battle
| tested protocol.
| comex wrote:
| But according to https://ircv3.net/software/clients, none
| of the clients you mentioned actually support emoji
| reactions (draft/react), and other features like multi-line
| messages and image uploads are likewise extremely limited
| in server/client support. So, for the time being, you can't
| use these features if you want to actually be interoperable
| with existing IRC users and their clients. Sounds like if
| you want decentralized, Matrix is still the better bet.
| __tmk__ wrote:
| Interesting, I've also heard the exact opposite opinion [0]
| where Zulip's non-standard approach is seen as its main
| strength.
|
| [0]: https://chaos.social/@yorgos/115931944888149528
| nicoburns wrote:
| I can whole heartedly recommend Zulip. They really get open
| source, allow you to own your data, and their UI despite being
| a bit quirky is IMO the best out there for handling complex
| conversations (the ability for admins to retrospectively move
| mesages between topics like old school forum software being a
| real standout feature).
| Hamuko wrote:
| If the binaries are licensed under MIT, can I decompile the
| binaries, clean up the source code and have a clean version of
| Mattermost for distribution?
| londons_explore wrote:
| Yes you can
| dooglius wrote:
| The license seems perfectly clear in that it's multiply-licensed
| under AGPL, MIT, and corporate licensing based on different use
| cases. Maybe this guy has reading comprehension issues, but more
| likely he's just unhappy with the corporate part and wants to
| stir drama.
| MallocVoidstar wrote:
| They could simply say that, then, instead of saying you might
| be able to use it under the AGPL.
| nimih wrote:
| They didn't say you "might" be able to use it under the AGPL,
| but that you "may" be licensed to use it. Which, as a native
| speaker of American English, seems to be relatively clear in
| its meaning along the lines of what the GP poster stated. Of
| course, the various meanings of "may" in English might be
| subtle enough that I'd readily believe it's less clear to
| non-native speakers (or maybe even speakers of a different
| dialect), and it's unfortunate that Mattermost's lawyers
| aren't interesting in cleaning up the language.
| epistasis wrote:
| Hopefully I'm not violating copyright by taking this small
| chunk of their LICENSE.txt, but this appears to be the language
| that some want clarified:
|
| https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...
|
| ---- You are licensed to use compiled
| versions of the Mattermost platform produced by Mattermost,
| Inc. under an MIT LICENSE - See MIT-COMPILED-
| LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for details
| You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled
| versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways:
| 1. Under the Free Software Foundation's GNU AGPL v3.0, subject
| to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or 2. Under
| a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by
| contacting commercial@mattermost.com
| moeffju wrote:
| "Subject to the exceptions" conflicts with the "no
| exceptions" wording in the GPL licenses, so I don't even see
| how any of this constitutes a valid license
| gowld wrote:
| AGPL does not say "no exceptions". AGPL explicity allows
| exceptions:
|
| https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENS
| E...
|
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
| gpm wrote:
| I read the exceptions as a grant of additional rights to
| mattermost's copyright (but not to third parties), I don't
| think that conflicts.
|
| I'm not sure that they actually granted a GPL license at
| all though. I could see this document being read as an
| advertisement that one might be for sale instead of a
| grant...
|
| (Not a lawyer)
| rcxdude wrote:
| It does create confusion because adding extra clauses onto
| whether you can use the AGPL kind of defeats the point of the
| AGPL, and creates a contradiction because the different flavors
| of the GPL generally all have language that tries explicitly to
| prevent such a thing, which is a pretty classic piece of
| confusion (I've had it when negotiating employment contracts
| and it's shocking how many people seemingly just never read the
| documents they're offering).
|
| (EDIT: though, having read the whole document, it seems like
| there is just a trademark carve-out, which is explicitly
| allowed under the AGPL, so this seems reasonably
| straightforward, except for the strange 'we promise not to
| enforce copyleft if you don't modify the code' which seems
| entirely redundant. Oh, and the 'licensed to use source code to
| create compiled version' which seems like a very strange
| phrasing)
| throwaway150 wrote:
| Licensing should never be left to "reading comprehension". If
| there is any doubt about the terms, a clarification should be
| requested. A clarification was requested here. The requested
| clarification was declined. If this matter was really so simple
| that simple "reading comprehension" would solve it, the project
| maintainers could have said so. But they didn't. And that they
| didn't holds more weightage than what some random stranger has
| to say about "reading comprehension".
| MD87 wrote:
| ... also some parts are Apache, and the wording around the AGPL
| bit is very weird:
|
| > ... licensed to use source code to create compiled versions
| ...
|
| Why's it calling out compiling specifically? Are they trying to
| imply you can't modify/distribute/etc the source? Presumably
| that would be a "further restriction" per the AGPL and hence
| ignorable, but it's sloppy at best and misleading at worse,
| which isn't great for a license document...
| bilekas wrote:
| Isn't this by default unlicensed then? I would avoid it anyway.
| Absolutely no need for that risk.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Yes. Also not to be confused with being Unlicense-d [0],
| because heaven forbid we use reasonable names for anything.
|
| [0] https://opensource.org/license/unlicense
| Fnoord wrote:
| It used to be like that, yes. If you didn't mention the
| license, it was in public domain. Those times are long gone
| though.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| > If you didn't mention the license, it was in public domain.
|
| I don't think this has ever been the case. If a license is
| not mentioned, it is always "All rights reserved" by the
| authors of the project, by the Berne convention (1886).
| fhdkweig wrote:
| While I don't know if license and copyright are the same
| thing, the film Night of the Living Dead was famously
| accidentally added to the public domain due to a forgotten
| copyright notice.
| compass_copium wrote:
| I believe that was a forgotten renewal of copyright
| status.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| Wow. I didn't know that. Looks like this is a very US
| thing. I looked up now and TIL that US adopted the Berne
| convention as late as 1989. I'm surprised. So this movie
| released in 1966 didn't have default "all rights
| reserved" due to Berne convention. But most European
| countries, like 80%, had adopted the Berne convention by
| 1925. So when software was developed in Europe they
| automatically got "all rights reserved".
| whstl wrote:
| That's because the US was not part of the Berne
| Convention until 1989, so before that U.S. works often
| had protection only if certain formalities were met (like
| registration or notice).
| wang_li wrote:
| Copyright is a right held over the ownership of a piece
| of IP. A license is a permission slip that allows you to
| exercise actions that would otherwise be reserved by
| copyright. There is no requirement for a license. It's
| not a state of a piece of IP.
| comex wrote:
| However, the United States did not join the Berne
| Convention until 1988, and prior to 1978 it did not
| automatically grant federal copyright when a work was
| created; instead you had to register your work with the
| Copyright Office in order to receive federal protection.
| There were also some state-level protections at the time
| that did not require registration, but apparently they
| weren't very strong.
| jezzamon wrote:
| Unlicensed does not mean public domain
| throwaway150 wrote:
| Yes, if the licensing terms are unclear, to err on the side of
| caution, it is best to assume "All rights reserved" by the
| authors of the software so you don't accidentally violate the
| authors' rights. And then hire a lawyer to sort this matter for
| you.
| chobeat wrote:
| Go on Zulip or Anytype
| michaelt wrote:
| To me, this seems kinda reasonable.
|
| The reality is licenses are all nonsense and none of it makes any
| sense. There could be secret patents nobody knows about. That
| precise wording written by American lawyers might not hold up in
| Chinese courts. There might be two compatible licenses, but one
| is 20x the length of the other; obviously some legal expert
| thought those extra words were needed - but are they? What's
| going on with linking and derivative works? Do you need to copy-
| and-paste the full legal blurb into every single file, or not?
| Why are some sections written in all caps, and does the reason
| for doing that apply globally? What if someone claimed to have
| the right to contribute code to an open project but actually had
| an employment contract meaning the code wasn't theirs to
| transfer? What's the copyright status of three-line stackoverflow
| answers?
|
| The truth is nobody knows, and nobody cares. You and I won't get
| sued, probably, and if we do it's not like we'd have avoided it
| by reading the license. Might as well ignore it, like people
| ignore website terms of use and software click-through licenses
| and other legal mumbo-jumbo.
|
| On the other hand, if you're the kind of gigantic enterprise that
| has _policies_ on software licenses and a _team of in-house
| lawyers_ and you can 't use this software without greater license
| clarity? Well, you can get that licensing clarity with the
| enterprise version of the software.
| bogwog wrote:
| The AGPL accomplishes the same thing, except there is no
| ambiguity and you never have to wonder "could I be sued for
| using this software?"
| thisislife2 wrote:
| > _But nobody will get sued, and that 's the only thing that
| matters._
|
| Do you really want to bet your business on that? Vizio thought
| the same when using GPL code, and now they are in court.
| _Software Freedom Conservancy sues Vizio for GPL violations_ -
| https://www.zdnet.com/article/software-freedom-conservancy-s...
| razingeden wrote:
| I don't think they're worried about "my business."
|
| Open source is notorious for being implemented in $$$ COTS
| and commerce and then contributing $0 in money and then even
| less in contribs bug fixes or sharing in house tweaks,isn't
| this what Wordpress has been melting down over for a year or
| two now?
|
| And I'm sure many more projects are pissed off or resenting
| their chains but not making an ugly scene about it.
|
| Something has to give here.
|
| I don't have a dog in this fight other than to say that what
| mattermost went with here "is a choice" , and I have "a
| choice" whether to accept these terms.
|
| I'm interested in watching how it plays out though. They cast
| their die. Problems have solutions. We could all get into
| whether this solution is viable or not -- doesn't matter this
| is what they went with and they made it clear they're not
| taking user input on it. I'm not even a user so I expect them
| to care even less about my thoughts.
|
| Im supportive of anyone trying to find an equitable balance
| but maybe that's a situation where they could roll their own
| license with these clauses and exclusions.
|
| Its not like Microsoft or iTunes user agreements aren't
| complete bullshit, yet people click okay and use all that.
| wmf wrote:
| Vizio (and every other embedded vendor) knows they're
| breaking the GPL and they just don't care. It's not an
| analogous situation.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| I have used many open source tools and I have convinced my
| company to buy the commercial license of the said tools to get
| the enterprise version and support. Win-win for both parties. I
| use and improve my skills on the open source version of the
| tools I love. Our company uses great tools. The project
| maintainers get paid.
|
| But I don't think I'll ever buy an enterprise version of the
| software which can't get the simple matter of open source
| licensing right. It isn't that hard. Thousands of developers
| are doing it.
|
| If the tool was totally enterprise version only, I'd probably
| have less qualms about it. But to advertise a tool as open
| source license but then violate the open source licensing
| method both in spirit and the letter of the law is just too
| unprofessional for me that I'd steer clear of them in future
| and discourage anyone I know from spending their money on them.
| ethin wrote:
| It isn't really reasonable though. The word "may" implies
| possibility, not absolutism. So reading the sentence logically,
| at least to me, saying that I "may be" able to license it under
| the AGPL means that I might or might not be able to do that...
| And I have no way of knowing if I can or can't unless I...
| What, contact them?
| leoedin wrote:
| I think in this case it implies choice for the user. There's
| an implied "if you want to". You may use this software _if
| you want to_ in one of two ways:
|
| That's pretty clear to me (a native speaker from the UK) - i
| can't really see how else it could be interpreted. As another
| poster said, it's the same "may" as "you may go to the
| washroom" or "you may enter now" - which implies consent from
| the speaker.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Restrictions like this, where your code is only available for
| use for certain purposes by certain kinds of users, are
| explicitly rejected by both the open source and free software
| movements. If a developer wants to license their code this way,
| they should admit that what they're building is not an open
| source platform. Then they can simply use one of the licenses
| like CC NC or SSPL that are designed for that purpose, instead
| of trying to stitch together an unfree license out of a bunch
| of free ones.
| thisislife2 wrote:
| Is the bad publicity worth it with this kind of rug pull to _" we
| are opensource, but not really"_? I get that an open source
| product can get you some free (word of mouth) and good publicity.
| But in general, open source is also strongly associated with
| "free" (as in you don't have to pay money for it). So if you do
| want to make money from a software product, weigh the pros and
| cons carefully - commercial open source products do tend to be
| less profitable than commercial closed-source versions. If you
| are ok with that, go with the open source business model.
| Otherwise, stick to the closed-source business model from the get
| go. Be honest from the start - brand damage is really costly to
| repair.
| LamaOfRuin wrote:
| I believe they generally refer to themselves as open-core.
| lukan wrote:
| From this githubpage:
|
| "Mattermost is an open source platform for secure
| collaboration across the entire software development
| lifecycle.. "
| throwaway89201 wrote:
| But also: "open source" -> "open core" (9 months ago) [1]
|
| [1] https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/commit/0cc906d
| 07e73...
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > But in general, open source is also strongly associated with
| "free"
|
| In the anglophone world, yes. In many other parts of the world,
| the gratis/libre distinction is clear in the language used.
| nix0n wrote:
| If you are looking for another self-hostable alternative to
| Slack, Rocket chat[0] is also worth looking at.
|
| I wasn't involved in any of the Dev Ops aspect when my former
| employer used them, but the search function actually worked which
| is better than I can say for Slack.
|
| [0]https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/blob/develop/LICEN..
| .
| conception wrote:
| Curious if anyone has worked on just expanding IRC into an
| internal product? That's more or less how slack started.
| lefstathiou wrote:
| Someone tried to shake our company down once. They posted all
| this stock imagery on the web, waited for someone to use it with
| an ambiguously worded attribution policy, then have a third party
| chase you down and demand $100k but will settle for $5k.
|
| It turns out we did attribute the right way (in our terms of use)
| and could prove it with logs of when we added the language and
| when it was removed after we removed the image, but I am sure
| they nail people all the time with this strategy. This didnt stop
| them from sending 20 emails, demand lawyers get on the phone,
| etc.
|
| There are a couple of similar scams like this out there.
| jabl wrote:
| Sounds like the creative commons attribution scam as detailed
| by Cory Doctorow
| https://pluralistic.net/2023/04/01/pixsynnussija/
| arjie wrote:
| Oh that's a classic trick. It's been going on for decades. One
| example I am particularly familiar with is that of Larry
| Philpot / User:Nightshooter on Wikimedia Commons. He would
| upload his photos there with an addendum on how he should be
| attributed. Any slight impression in the attribution would be
| followed by legal action. It was obviously a copyright troll
| mechanism and now all of his photos on Wikimedia Commons have
| forced attribution affixed by users that warns others that he
| sues people.
|
| His stuff is so widespread that the consensus on Wikimedia
| Commons was to keep his photos and add a warning so that no one
| ends up accidentally using it. Some accused him of sock-
| puppetry to get his content into a place.
|
| Today, intellectual property maximalism is a much more
| mainstream position so perhaps modern Internet users will think
| that he is in the right, but I think it's a bit much.
|
| Here's the thread where he's discussed:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27...
|
| Here's an example forced-attribution photo:
| https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flaming_Lips.jpg
| jeltz wrote:
| Could he ever win a case in court? At least the Swedish legal
| system is based a lot around common sense and good faith and
| such a trap would likely end up with the one who sued having
| to pay the legal costs for both parties.
| arjie wrote:
| Larry Philpot actually _did_ win a case in court. His case
| was first dismissed but then on appeal the Fourth Circuit
| granted him the win:
| https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-
| courts/ca4/21...
| zem wrote:
| I am honestly flabbergasted that his pictures weren't
| expunged with great prejudice. what is the value they add to
| wikimedia that makes being associated with this sort of
| sleaze okay?
| arjie wrote:
| A valid question. These kinds of approaches are a pretty
| standard attack in the copyleft world. I don't know on what
| basis the community chooses forced-attribution vs deletion.
|
| Marco Verch managed to get his stuff deleted: https://commo
| ns.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests...
|
| So it's a question of the execution of the operation
| really.
|
| By the way, do you also have the same user handle on
| Reddit? I have the vaguest memory of you quoting someone
| else on the subject of denying a person suffering on the
| street drugs that went something to the effect of not
| wanting to do it because denying such a man drugs deny him
| his only escape from such reality or something of the sort.
|
| I never did find that comment again, and it's been at the
| back of my mind for years (perhaps even a decade) and now
| I'm not even sure if I've asked you this before.
| zem wrote:
| yes that was me! I love that quote (it's by samuel
| johnson), so it's really moving to hear it made an
| impression on someone else too. here it is:
|
| What signifies, says some one, giving halfpence to
| beggars? they only lay it out in gin or tobacco. "And why
| should they be denied such sweeteners of their existence
| (says Johnson)? it is surely very savage to refuse them
| every possible avenue to pleasure, reckoned too coarse
| for our own acceptance. Life is a pill which none of us
| can bear to swallow without gilding; yet for the poor we
| delight in stripping it still barer, and are not ashamed
| to shew even visible displeasure, if ever the bitter
| taste is taken from their mouths."
|
| -- Piozzi: Anecdotes
| tecoholic wrote:
| I don't understand why this is sleazy TBH. It's CC-BY-SA.
| If attribution isn't provided it's a valid case. I once
| uploaded a map of my state with all the districts in labels
| in English and my language Tamil to commons under CC-BY-SA.
| It was used left right and centre, from publications, map
| sellers to the point I can see them hanging in offices.
| It's always pained me, nothing could be done about it. Now
| I didn't want money, would have liked the recognition, but
| would have settled for just seeing the CC-BY-SA logo on it
| at the least.
| arjie wrote:
| CC-BY-SA-4.0 fixes the specific technique of spreading
| one's work through the commons and then charging for
| inadequate attribution by allowing for a 30 day cure
| period on notification. This anti-copyleft-troll clause
| should likely permit your use-case.
| teraflop wrote:
| If you read the discussion, they weren't kept because of
| their encyclopedic value, or because they were
| "widespread". I'm not sure why the parent commenter said
| that.
|
| They were kept to preserve a record of their having been
| uploaded, and to not create a legal risk for third parties
| who might be relying on the Commons page as their way to
| provide attribution.
|
| The original proposal was to keep the image _pages_ with
| the metadata, but delete the image _files_. That turned out
| to have some technical hurdles, so instead the images were
| overwritten with versions containing big ugly attribution
| messages, to discourage their use.
| zem wrote:
| ah thanks, that makes a lot of sense.
| arjie wrote:
| I was curious about this a few years ago so I took a look
| around and found another case, the one of Thomas Wolf /
| User:Der_Wolf_im_Wald, but this guy seems to be getting away
| with it because he has a 'no-derivatives' box on the image
| page. He has the same _modus operandi_ :
|
| 1. Post the photo to Wikimedia Commons
|
| 2. Mark it CC-BY or derivative (say CC-BY-SA etc.)
|
| 3. Have a highly precise attribution clause
|
| 4. Sue everyone who uses it without the specific attribution
|
| The funny thing about _this_ copyleft troll is that Someone
| Who Is Not Him creates accounts on Reddit (e.g. this one[0])
| that post exclusively about how they made a mistake and the
| photographer was well within his rights to sue and you should
| take him very seriously and negotiate the amount.
|
| > _We actually violated copyright law before he wrote to us.
| So it was our mistake and we apologized for that._
|
| I really should create a List page for this on my personal
| wiki so I can remember all these guys. I find this kind of
| behavior galling.
|
| People did bring up this stuff here: https://commons.wikimedi
| a.org/wiki/User_talk:Der_Wolf_im_Wal.....
|
| But since I don't speak German well enough and inevitably
| this is going to end up in such a situation where you have
| to, I think it best I don't pursue deletion here. Hopefully a
| German speaker will see fit, referencing the other cases
| here.
|
| 0: https://www.reddit.com/user/No_Significance7032/
| paxys wrote:
| I dug around for ~10 minutes and it's probably not an
| exaggeration to say that Mattermost might have the most confusing
| licensing of any software product in existence.
|
| From the license page on their repo (https://github.com/mattermos
| t/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...):
|
| > 1. You are licensed to use compiled versions of the Mattermost
| platform produced by Mattermost, Inc. under an MIT LICENSE
|
| So just the compiled versions, not the source code. Ok, at least
| that is clear. But - the MIT license explictly allows for
| modification and redistribution. So can I do that?
|
| The next line.
|
| > See MIT-COMPILED-LICENSE.md included in compiled versions for
| details
|
| Except this file doesn't exist anywhere in the repo or outside.
|
| > You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled
| versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways:
|
| > 1. Under the Free Software Foundation's GNU AGPL v3.0, subject
| to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or > 2. Under a
| commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc. by contacting
| commercial@mattermost.com
|
| What does "may be licensed" mean? Do I have to contact them for a
| license? Or is an AGPL license implied?
|
| > You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools and
| Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/,
| server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under the
| Apache License v2.0.
|
| Sure, let's throw another license in there, because there weren't
| enough already.
|
| > We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in
| AGPL v3.0 against you if your application ... [set of conditions]
|
| WTF does a "promise" mean here? Is this actually AGPL or not?
|
| Then they have copy pasted the entire _Apache License_ , even
| though the project isn't licensed under Apache. Why??
|
| Oh but that's not all.
|
| There's a separate license page at
| https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/faq-license.htm...,
| which says:
|
| > Mattermost Team Edition (Open Source) - Open Source MIT
| License.
|
| Uh, what? That goes against everything said in LICENSE.txt. So
| now we are back to fully open source?
| ethin wrote:
| Wouldn't that license also violate the AGPL? I mean, it does
| say, in section 7:
|
| > All other non-permissive additional terms are considered
| "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the
| Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a
| notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a
| term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
| If a license document contains a further restriction but
| permits relicensing or conveying
|
| So, my interpretation is that I am free to license it under the
| AGPL; there is no "well, we might decide to do that", and I can
| strip all conditions they place upon me and comply only with
| the AGPL, and legally there is nothing they can do about it.
| KolmogorovComp wrote:
| yes, but that's not what happen here. this part of the AGPL
| is there to avoid people adding more restrictions, but here
| mattermost is loosening up the restrictions.
|
| > > We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft
| provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application ...
| [set of conditions]
| codeflo wrote:
| "We promise that we will not enforce" is perhaps a funny way
| not to grant a license, but making it sound like they do. This
| seems almost purposefully designed to _look_ open-source to
| laypeople, while being carefully written in a way that ensures
| it will be vetoed by any corporate lawyer vetting the license.
| u1hcw9nx wrote:
| Not clarifying is the right thing to do. If the license is
| unclear, it should be fixed by a lawyer who knows what they are
| doing. Nobody else in the company should try to explain what the
| license actually means. Trying to explain a license creates
| informal interpretations and a legal paper trail that can confuse
| things even more and be used against the company later. It can
| even create a new contract under some jurisdictions.
|
| Mattermost should be aware of the contra proferentem
| ('interpretation against the draftsman') doctrine of contractual
| interpretation. Ambiguity works against the party who provided
| the wording.
|
| Sometimes a license is confusing to a layman but consists of
| standard, established legal jargon. Don't touch the code until
| you know what it means from a source that knows what they are
| talking about. Don't take internet guesses or opinions as fact.
|
| This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is so
| useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear things
| up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.
| paxys wrote:
| If the license has been unclear for _8 years_ and the company
| hasn 't bothered to get a lawyer to fix it then the "I'm just
| an engineer and don't know about this stuff" excuse doesn't
| apply. It's obvious that they are deliberately keeping the
| license vague and confusing to scare users into paying for a
| commercial edition while also calling their product "open
| source" for marketing purposes.
| u1hcw9nx wrote:
| As I said, nobody should touch unclear license.
|
| Just forget the company and software, there is no reason to
| bitch about it. 7 years is too long to fix.
| jeltz wrote:
| No, it is great that people bitch about it. These companies
| need to be called out and shamed. Now I know that I will
| not waste time evaluating Mattermost.
| albedoa wrote:
| This is such a bizarre take man. What are you even on
| about? Maybe take your own advice.
| leoedin wrote:
| I really don't think it's unclear. The use of "you may be ...
| in one of two ways" is unambiguous. The fact someone opened
| an issue is evidence that one person was confused by it, but
| we don't know anything about that person. They may not be a
| native speaker of English. Or they might be trying to pick a
| fight because the licensing terms don't agree with their
| viewpoint.
| throwaway89201 wrote:
| Counterpoint: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46862339
| gowld wrote:
| > If the license is unclear, it should be fixed by a lawyer who
| knows what they are doing.
|
| It's been 7 years and not fixed, apparently.
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Isn't the right thing to do is for "the company" to clarify the
| license it offers its software and code under?
|
| I think we understand that random devs on GitHub aren't the
| right ones to resolve it, but I find it hard to believe the
| correct response is for the company to do nothing.
| grayhatter wrote:
| > Not clarifying is the right thing to do.
|
| Legally? Likely not. Ethically, definitely not.
|
| Legally, (in the US at least,) any ambiguity in the
| interpretation of a contract will most often be interpreted to
| benefit of the party that didn't draft the contract. In this
| case, the interpretation of license would likely benefit the
| user. But then, I'm only repeating what you've already said. So
| the ambiguity here doesn't benefit them legally speaking. I do
| agree, a frontline engineer shouldn't be trying to clarify the
| legal meaning in a github issue (without the legal expertise a
| good legal team would contribute). I don't agree that leaving
| the understanding to be ambiguous, is a solid legal decision.
|
| Then, ethically. If someone ask if the license is trying to
| trap them, and all you do is shrug. You're not the good guy,
| ethically speaking.
|
| > This is why using standard well drafted licenses verbatim is
| so useful. Legal phrases that have established meanings clear
| things up for legally even if they confuse the rest of us.
|
| This may be pedantically true, but the part that trumps the US
| doctrine of contra proferentem, is the original intent that
| both parties likely understood. The legal interpretation, while
| you say it may be confusing for some people, doesn't override
| what the parties reasonably understood the contract to state.
| Or in this case, license, to grant.
|
| That is to say, if you represent your offering as open source,
| and enjoy the benefits of such. It's a fundamental error to
| assume the courts will later back you up when you change your
| mind, and attempt a rug pull. And that's ignoring the ethical
| implications, which are enough for me to wanna peace out. (I.e.
| if you're pissing off your users and supporters, it was the
| wrong decision.)
| ilaksh wrote:
| This looks like either they are deliberately trying to trick
| people into thinking it's the MIT license, or have accidentally
| made the most confusing and nonsensical license ever.
|
| MIT licensed binary in a source code repo does not make any
| sense.
|
| This is a huge red flag.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Sounds like potentially expensive legal case if they try to
| enforce it. Opens it up to many arguments in many
| jurisdictions.
| almosthere wrote:
| if there is no license, then it is public domain if they put code
| on a website
| eikenberry wrote:
| This is not true in the US where everything is automatically
| copyrighted and protected, so nothing goes directly into the
| public domain (even if the author wants it). Thus no license
| means that you have no license to use the code legally.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| Correct. That's not true in Europe either. IIRC it's not true
| in Asia either. I don't understand why so many people who
| don't have even the most basic understanding or experience of
| licensing feel they must post their opinion as if they were
| facts. People are certainly entitled to their opinion. But so
| many comments here are speaking absolute nonsense about
| licensing as if they were facts. I genuinely don't understand
| why people feel compelled to do so.
| redwall_hp wrote:
| Or any country the US has a reciprocal copyright treaty with,
| which is all but a vanishingly small set of countries.
|
| A work is protected by copyright the moment it's authored,
| and all rights are reserved unless it's explicitly licensed
| otherwise.
| fwip wrote:
| Not applicable and also incorrect.
| cess11 wrote:
| I suspect that no lawyer checked off on this licensing strategy.
|
| I'm also not so sure a serious business person checked off on
| annoying and scaring users that aren't but might in the future
| become customers or otherwise paying users.
| orphea wrote:
| I would just stay away from Mattermost. Don't host, don't use,
| don't contribute. Treat as source-available.
| jrmg wrote:
| It seems obvious that this 'may' is the 'may' used in the sense
| of granting permission: "you may go to the restroom", "you may
| begin eating", "you may ask questions now", "you may kiss the
| bride" etc.
|
| All these are clear. The wedding officiant isn't saying "You
| _might_ have permission to kiss the bride! Just try it and we'll
| find out! Ha ha!"
|
| To interpret this as saying that you _might_ be licensed is just
| as nonsensical as that in this context. It's in a file named
| "LICENSE.txt" explicitly meant to describe the license terms.
|
| Would 'are' be better? I'd say yes, but it's silly to argue that
| this isn't proper English for granting permission.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| Speaking only for myself here. But I don't have the arrogance
| to assume that I can interpret legalese the way I interpret
| English. When shit goes to court, saying here's what I thought
| "may" means is not going to be a legal defense strategy.
| There's a reason I hire lawyers for this kind of shit because
| they are really good at their job and I won't pretend I know
| their job better than they do.
| bombcar wrote:
| > saying here's I thought "may" means is not going to be a
| legal defense strategy
|
| It _is_ - it might not be _successful_ (the court may rule
| against you) - but if what you thought "may" meant was close
| to what a "reasonable person" would have thought, you may be
| ruled against with no or low penalty.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| > It is - it might not be successful (the court may rule
| against you)
|
| Exactly what I said.
| dijit wrote:
| you'd be surprised how much your command of the english
| language translates into legalise.
|
| Yes, there's a definite codex of legal terms that have
| specific legal meaning but sound like "open to
| interpretation" english, but, those are vanishingly small.
|
| Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is
| _not_ said, then you get very _very_ far.
|
| Source: spent about half-a-decade with very expensive swiss
| lawyers.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| > Largely, if you read defensively and try to read what is
| not said, then you get very very far.
|
| How far is "very, very far"? Is it far enough that, if
| there were a lawsuit, my liability would truly be capped at
| EUR10,000? Because that's how much liability I can afford.
| If that "very very far" guarantees such a limit, then yes,
| I agree it is very very far. But my experience tells me
| that without formal legal training, I cannot be confident
| that I have interpreted legal language correctly enough to
| rely on that conclusion.
|
| Open source licenses are often relatively readable, but
| corporate contracts and other legal texts, including those
| from companies that market themselves as open source in
| questionable ways, can contain subtleties and loopholes. As
| a layperson, it is difficult to know how much exposure I
| might have if I misunderstand a detail and act in
| contradiction of the license terms.
|
| Perhaps we are simply on opposite sides of the D-K effect
| here. Or maybe you simply are good with legalese and I'm
| being unnecessarily skeptical.
|
| If experience with lawyers matters, I have spent many years
| working with lawyers across Europe. If that taught me
| anything, it is to avoid assuming that I can reliably
| interpret legal language without proper training.
|
| Yes, I can usually grasp perhaps 80 percent of what a
| contract is saying at a high level. But in every contract
| we reviewed, lawyers consistently found issues or
| implications I would not have noticed. They then either
| refined the contract or advised taking a calculated risk.
| So I think it is reasonable for me to remain cautious about
| my own ability to interpret legal language with confidence.
| zdragnar wrote:
| Liability is capped by court (e.g. small claims court) or
| by specific claim type depending on the legislation of
| the jurisdiction (e.g. speeding tickets typically have
| set fines varying by state).
|
| Liability is not capped by your ability to understand the
| law. If that is your concern, you shouldn't be doing
| business anywhere, US or otherwise.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| > Liability is capped by court (e.g. small claims court)
| or by specific claim type depending on the legislation of
| the jurisdiction (e.g. speeding tickets typically have
| set fines varying by state).
|
| What you are saying is partly true and overly simplified.
| Are you a lawyer? Do you have legal expertise? If not, I
| don't understand why you feel compelled to advise on
| things you understand so little yourself? Are you going
| to compare my contract with my vendor with speeding
| ticket? Are you kidding me?
|
| Comparing contractual liability to speeding fines makes
| me think you have not a clue of what you're talking
| about. Speeding penalties are statutory and predefined.
| Commercial liability usually is not. In Europe, most
| serious business disputes never go near small claims
| courts. They go to ordinary civil courts or arbitration,
| where damages depend on the contract, applicable law, and
| the specific facts. There is often no automatic cap
| unless the contract explicitly sets one, and even then
| its enforceability depends on jurisdiction and
| circumstances.
|
| Small claims limits only restrict which court hears the
| case, not the total liability. A claimant can often file
| in a higher court or pursue related claims elsewhere. And
| in cross-border European business, jurisdiction,
| governing law, and enforcement become additional risks.
| Getting this wrong can expose you to far more liability
| than you expected.
|
| Liability is not limited by your personal understanding
| of the law. That is why businesses do not rely on
| guesswork. Contracts are reviewed, liability caps are
| negotiated, insurance is obtained and lawyers are paid to
| spot risks that non-lawyers routinely miss.
|
| > If that is your concern, you shouldn't be doing
| business anywhere, US or otherwise.
|
| Yes, that is my concern. I do business in Europe. By
| paying actual laywers. And I'll continue to do so. Thank
| you very much.
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Licenses are not about what things "seem", their text should be
| clear enough to hold up to legal scrutiny, not just what some
| person who speaks some local variant of English thinks is
| obvious.
|
| Even if you're a lawyer, whether it's obvious to _you_ is
| irrelevant: it has to be obvious to _everyone_. And if it 's
| not (and it should be abundantly clear that it's not, given the
| linked discussion), the license needs fixing.
| throwaway89201 wrote:
| The counterpoint is that three sentences away, there's a clear
| "You are licensed to use the source code" for the non-server
| parts. It can certainly be argued that there's an intentional
| difference. Extended court cases have been fought over mere
| punctuation. In any case, the FUD that this creates is enough
| to make anyone think twice about reusing the server code,
| especially as they have refused to clarify for many years now.
|
| Also, the ambiguity is not only in the "you may be" part, but
| also in the "to create compiled versions" part. Open source is
| more than creating compiled versions of source code.
| godelski wrote:
| You may be licensed to use source code to create compiled
| versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc. in one of two ways:
| 1. Under the Free Software Foundation's GNU AGPL v3.0,
| subject to the exceptions outlined in this policy; or
| 2. Under a commercial license available from Mattermost, Inc.
| by contacting commercial@mattermost.com
|
| My read: We provide you with two options, either: 1. Follow
| Apache License 2. Pay us and you don't need to follow Apache
| License terms
|
| This really seems like a dual license situation where they
| are saying "Let's encourage Open Source, but if you want to
| just use our work to make yourself rich and not even
| acknowledge you're using us then fuck you, pay us."
|
| I expect this to become more common as companies routinely
| infringe on OSS licenses while simultaneously many companies
| are hesitant to use OSS because of licenses. This at least
| gives an out for the good actors and allow devs to make money
| (other than being reliant on donations, because... that's
| worked out...).
|
| But maybe I'm misunderstanding? If so, I don't know what I'm
| missing
| homarp wrote:
| how you jump from AGPL to apache?
| corranh wrote:
| The commenter doesn't jump to Apache, the license
| does...if you scroll down it's the Apache license not the
| AGPL.
| godelski wrote:
| For anyone that needs the link: https://github.com/matter
| most/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...
|
| Also note that they have an enterprise license
| (/server/enterprise/License): https://github.com/mattermo
| st/mattermost/blob/master/server/...
|
| The README on the enterprise directory also links to a
| page with more detail (FAQ):
| https://docs.mattermost.com/product-overview/frequently-
| aske...
| throwaway89201 wrote:
| > But maybe I'm misunderstanding? If so, I don't know what
| I'm missing
|
| You're apparently missing the two points I made in the post
| you are replying to, or at the very least you're not
| responding to them. By which I don't mean to say they are
| necessarily valid points.
| godelski wrote:
| My bad, I was confused given the context of the comment
| you responded to. Maybe I should quote the next line
| instead? You are licensed to use the
| source code in Admin Tools and Configuration Files
| (server/templates/, server/i18n/, server/public/, webapp/
| and all subdirectories thereof) under the Apache License
| v2.0.
|
| So I read Apache (OSS): |-
| server/ | |- i18n/ | |- public/ |
| |- templates/ |- webapp/ Not Apache
| (pay us/not OSS): |- api/ |- e2e-tests/
| |- server/ | |- bin/ | |- build/
| | |- cmd/ | |- enterprise/ | |- scripts/
| | |- Makefile | |- path.go | |- this is
| not a complete list but you get the point |-
| tools/
|
| Part of the code is open source. Part of the code is
| source available (source visible).
|
| Again, I am open to misunderstanding but that's my read.
| NewsaHackO wrote:
| The last message on that thread before lieut-data responded and
| closed it was in 2023. Why did they even take action or reply to
| the issue in the first place? It could have easily gone under the
| rug.
| gowld wrote:
| GPL and AGLP both use the word "may" 31 times.
|
| If you aren't comfortable with the word "may", you'll have a lot
| of trouble with open source languages.
|
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
|
| https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html
| sowbug wrote:
| Are there any instances where a fork of a project has altered the
| license language for the purpose of reducing this kind of
| ambiguity?
|
| Either the original license grant is expansive, so the
| clarification is welcome and the fork will become the standard
| unless/until the modification is upstreamed, or else the grant is
| restrictive, so the fork language is invalid, and the grantors
| face the risk of laches or other equitable defenses if they don't
| stop the fork from offering the less ambiguous interpretation
| that grantees rely on.
|
| Fork as legal test case, if you will.
| scotty79 wrote:
| I think more software people should be doing that. Just confusing
| the hell out or lawyers (armchair and proper).
| emacdona wrote:
| I am not a lawyer.
|
| My reading of the license is: either (a) buy a license or (b) be
| bound by the AGPLv3 -- with _very_ limited exceptions.
|
| So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the
| "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor (b)
| be bound by the AGPLv3?
|
| If so, I have no sympathy.
| throwaway150 wrote:
| > So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the
| "ambiguity" people who neither
|
| > (a) want to buy a license nor
|
| > (b) be bound by the AGPLv3?
|
| No and no. People first want to know what the correct licenses
| are even before deciding which licensing path (including buying
| a commercial license) to take. You don't just commit to buying
| a commercial license without first understanding your options
| and comparing those options. People want to know what those
| options are.
|
| People are upset that a company cannot get the simple matter of
| open source licensing right. It's the easiest kind of
| licensing. But they cannot get it right. These upset people
| would now never want to do business with this company.
|
| People who would have otherwise been happy to purchase a
| commercial license would also stay away from the company
| because messing up open source licensing is a red flag. Who
| knows what kind of mess would be present in their commercial
| contracts. Yes, you can hire a lawyer to sort it out but I'd
| much rather do business with a company where I'm confident that
| the company is acting in good faith even before lawyers get
| involved.
|
| > If so, I have no sympathy.
|
| Your sympathy means nothing to me when I am picking vendors for
| my business. When I'm picking my vendors, I'm going to rely on
| professional legal expertise available to me, not the
| sympathies of random strangers on the internet.
| emacdona wrote:
| >> So, my question is: are the people that are upset with the
| "ambiguity" people who neither (a) want to buy a license nor
| (b) be bound by the AGPLv3?
|
| > No and no.
|
| [...]
|
| >> If so, I have no sympathy.
|
| > Your sympathy means nothing to me
|
| Well, regardless... via the rules of logical implication, you
| have it.
| emacdona wrote:
| Hah! I made a logical error. I should have said:
|
| Well, regardless... via the rules of logical implication,
| you can't be certain that you don't have it.
| mring33621 wrote:
| Ok, their license is pretty strange:
| https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost/blob/master/LICENSE...
|
| MIT for binaries distributed by Mattermost.
|
| But, if you compile it yourself: GNU AGPL v3.0 XOR Paid-for
| Enterprise License
|
| Then, for some odd reason, they append the text of Apache License
| Version 2.0!!!
| throwaway89201 wrote:
| The frontend parts are explicitly and correctly licensed under
| the Apache license in the header of the same file.
| mring33621 wrote:
| Ooh, I see it now, right in the middle:
|
| "...You are licensed to use the source code in Admin Tools
| and Configuration Files (server/templates/, server/i18n/,
| server/public/, webapp/ and all subdirectories thereof) under
| the Apache License v2.0...."
| godelski wrote:
| They also have a FAQ: https://docs.mattermost.com/product-
| overview/faq-license.htm...
|
| Note that they have multiple licenses. This isn't entirely
| uncommon. The difference licenses apply to different things.
| dang wrote:
| Submitted title was "Mattermost say they will not clarify what
| license the project is under", which is against the site
| guidelines: " _Please use the original title, unless it is
| misleading or linkbait; don 't editorialize._"
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
|
| I'm open to a different title than "LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to
| use source code; incorrect license grant", which is obscure
| enough to qualify as misleading if not linkbait. However, its
| replacement should be an accurate, neutral title that preferably
| uses representative language from the article itself (https://hn.
| algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...).
|
| Re the "don't editorialize" bit in the rules: 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...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-02-02 23:01 UTC)