New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
How open source is MatterMost? #2467
Comments
Updated. Answers now consolidated: mattermost/docs#1006 |
@kramer65 - I'm hold the same views as you. Mattermost licensing is very obscure and unclear at best. I cannot confidently answer if something as simple as White labeling is permitted. And those links referred to in this thread claiming to discuss this issue at length are not available anymore. |
@it33 - @kramer65 - @pcinat - In an ideal world, I would be able to make commercial enhancements, using closed-source libraries, to the open source Mattermost code, and offer this "upgrade" commercially. I'd be happy to pay something substantially similar to the Enterprise licensing rates for the ability to do so, but I haven't been able to get anything except "Go talk to the Forum" whenever I ask about negotiating commercial terms with the support personnel manning the contact form. Technically, where the code-base is is almost ideal for us to use as a fork-off point for an enhanced product for the healthcare industry (HIPAA, HL7, syndication, physician identify verification, patient identifiers, ...). But I am at a loss on how to get an answer from the company about who talk to about negotiating a commercial contract to make that possible. The email address 'commercial@mattermost.com' goes unanswered. I hope that something comes of this issue - because would prefer not to spend 6+ months getting to |
@pcinat if things aren't clear, that's our fault. We should fix it. Can you share specifically what you're trying to do when you say "white label"? Would you be altering or removing Mattermost copyright notices? Is this for internal use only, or would you be offering an altered version to a 3rd party? We should get a clear answer and post it officially. @ci5er also, sorry you didn't hear back. Please join our community server https://pre-release.mattermost.com/ you can DM me at it33 and we can discuss? |
@it33 - White labeling provides the option of removing or replacing the branding of Mattermost in the front-end UI that users get exposed to. I would not be altering or removing Mattermost copyright notices embedded in the source code. What I'm interested in is the ability to provide a slightly altered version of mattermost source code that can integrate within an existing web application by potentially removing the Mattermost logo from the UX. The confusing language with the license is the following (specifically clause b below):
The language seems to suggest that you can take a copy of the source BUT cannot modify, add or adapt any part of the source code. This really restricts what can be done and very unlike a standard MIT license. Is anyone able to confirm? |
Thanks @pcinat, appreciate the feedback, First, thank you for your specific questions. They help a lot. I think after we get to your answers we'll write-up a specific FAQ on what you're trying to do.
It's designed to meet the needs of people who agree with our purpose and it won't be as useful for people who do not agree.
PS: From your GitHub profile, it sounds like you're from Toronto. I'm from Toronto too, and went to Waterloo. If you'd like to discuss some time over a video call, you can join our community server https://pre-release.mattermost.com/ and DM me at it33 and we can jump on call. |
@pcinat have a new draft FAQ, let me know what you think? mattermost/docs#1006 |
Yesterday I asked a question about the licensing to which a rather strange answer came.
My question was the following: In your LICENSE.txt I read that the source code is subject to the following:
You answered that you do not encourage ... etc.
I'm not asking whether you encourage anything, I'm asking if your license legally permits removing Mattermost branding to sell the software under a different name. If it would be an MIT(-like) license, something like this would not be a problem. But since you're talking about exceptions and commercial licenses, it is very unclear for me how "open source" mattermost really is. Please be more clear about your licensing.
(ps. Since the issue was immediately closed I open this new issue to continue the discussion. Please do not close this question immediately just to get it off your list of issues.)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: