🚨Nation-scale Matrix deployments will fail if built on the community version of Synapse.
The community version of Synapse is not designed or intended for use by commercial Matrix hosting providers to serve huge nation-scale deployments. Just as a suspension bridge has a weight limit and will collapse if you exceed it - the same goes for community Synapse.
Deployments supporting millions of users need Synapse Pro.
https://element.io/blog/scaling-to-millions-of-users-requires-synapse-pro/
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from element@mastodon.matrix.org
@element As a tax payer I want my government to use open source. Since Synapse Pro isn't, it's simply not usable for such cases.
Thank you for detailing the need for doing the same development to the open source Synapse as you have already done on Synapse Pro. I hope you do agree, it would be a pity to have to fork.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from troed@ioc.exchange
@troed We'd also like everything to be open source. But the reality is that even with AGPL, we're still stuck in the pattern that enormous deployments use FOSS Synapse without contributing to its dev/maintenance costs.
Every time an opportunity that we're counting on to fund the team turns around and says "oh, FOSS Synapse is good enough, and we can use it for free, bye" we find ourselves needing to provide a very concrete reason not to freeride - hence Synapse Pro.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from element@mastodon.matrix.org
@element @troed tldr greed
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from teto@cawfee.club
@teto @troed tl;dr is more "need to be able to keep paying people to work on this".
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from element@mastodon.matrix.org
@element @troed donations seem to work for KDE just fine
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from teto@cawfee.club
@teto @troed KDE get 350K EUR/y according to their annual report, which is barely enough to pay for the matrix.org hardware costs, let alone anyone to work on Matrix, unfortunately.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from element@mastodon.matrix.org
@element @troed you could've done the obvious and sell matrix as a service or sell support for enterprise customers like Canonical. A "pro" version will just make the project look laughable to the open source community. Simple as.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from teto@cawfee.club
@teto @troed @element Canonical is actually selling "Pro" edition of Ubuntu
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from kdecherf@n.kdecherf.com
@teto @troed @element "here's our paid software but i guess you can use the crummy old version with scalability problems for free" is not a good argument for why people should use your software
everyone who sees this knows what that means will happen over the coming months and years
sorry that feature is no longer available in the free version, would you like to buy the pro version?
haha whoops we've intentionally crippled this functionality of the free version, would you like to buy the pro version?
you're only allowed to have 10 users on the free version now, would you like to buy the pro version?
we've deliberately broken compatibility with this in the free version, would you like to buy the pro version?
the free version now has ads in all channels, would you like to buy the pro version?
offering enterprise support + managed cloud hosting is the industry norm, not this
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from skylar@misskey.yandere.love
@skylar @teto @troed @element Also wondering how exactly a paid pro version with extra features isn't a violation of the AGPL without those very features being freely available on someone else's public repo
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from Tadano@amala.schwartzwelt.xyz
@Tadano @troed @element @skylar I don't know the soft nor the details, so take it with big salt because details matter in these things.
AGPLv3 and GPLv3 can grant some permission thanks to section 7, like allowing binding with third party code (like a plugin) without changing its license. The whole program has network properties of AGPL, including the soft in a bigger one triggers the (A)GPL, but you can have non (A)GPL modules.
This is the same section allowing a compiler to produce non-AGPL code for ex.
Still, it means that you can't put arbitrary barriers in the AGPL code without people being angry and removing them, or remove features without people putting them back in a fork, as in any free software.
And for the company doing that, I would look at their governance model: if they are VC funded/part of Big Corp, the whole floss part is likely just public relations in any case, and that model ir a pure AGPL is not a very strong clue: there's a lot of cases where it happened in the last years, with whole code base going dark. See for example the recent case for Puppet.
Well actually, whatever the governance, a company doing that is not a free software good citizen.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from fanf42@treehouse.systems
@fanf42 @Tadano @troed @skylar the situation here is that Element releases its FOSS as AGPL, but retains the right to dual-lic as proprietary (in order to raise $ to fund FOSS dev) via a CLA, which has the term that any AGPL contribs must be released as FOSS (to avoid rights ratcheting). Yes, Element is VC funded, but the last 10y of releasing almost everything as FOSS may give some confidence that we aren’t bad actors.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from element@mastodon.matrix.org This content has been proxied by September (3851b).Proxy Information
text/gemini