LICENSE: _may be_ licensed to use source code; incorrect license grant.

[onlyjob]

https://github.com/mattermost/mattermost-server/blob/master/LICENSE.txt#L9

"May be licensed"?? Under what conditions?

This is not compliant with open source definition.

[onlyjob]

Practically speaking, "is it licensed to me or not"? How would I know?

Wording should unambiguously license Mattermost to everybody under AGPL-3+ terms to comply with "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" §5 of Open Source definition.

The text of the AGPL-3 license contains instructions how to apply the license with specific standard text of the license grant.

Please use proper AGPL-3+ license grant, as instructed by the license.

[lfbrock]

Hi @onlyjob, would it be possible for you to file these with an "observed" and "expected" as per our bug filing guidelines? I think there may be a couple different issues combined in this thread, and filing it with observed/expected would make it easier to make sure each is addressed.

To respond to the first post in the thread:

"May be licensed"?? Under what conditions?

I believe "may" in this context is used as giving permission, not expressing possibility, but agree that it can be an ambiguous word - is there an alternative word you would suggest using that's more clear?

[onlyjob]

Ideally a standard unmodified license grant from the the text of the license should be used.

Grant of license should be unconditional. Something like "the software is licensed uder AGPL-3+ or commercial license". No "may be licensed" please.

[onlyjob]

When there will be a progress here??

It looks pretty bad when software pretends to be Open Source but really fails to comply with Open Source definition.

Is it really that hard to fix the text of the license grant??

This issue is related to #8884.

[lfbrock]

Hi @onlyjob - would changing the text to say the following fix the issue for you?

There are two options for licensing the source code to create compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc.:

Everyone is free to use the sofware under the AGPL license, but there is an alternative option (the commercial license) for people who would like to use the software for commercial purposes without the AGPL restrictions.

[hanzei]

@onlyjob What do you think about the proposal above? #8886 (comment)

[onlyjob]

Does not look good enough... Source code may not be used exclusively to create compiled versions...
Source licensing should be unambiguous regardless of intent to produce binaries or who is producing them. License that only allows to compile is non-free...

[hanzei]

@lfbrock What do you think about the feedback from @onlyjob?

[grundleborg]

@hanzei just to let you know that Katie and I are working on a proposal for updating all the text in this file. I'll update here once we have a full draft ready - it might be a while though as there's a lot of internal process it needs to go through.

[hanzei]

Thank you very much for the update @grundleborg 🎉

[DavidBM]

Hey! Any update about that proposal? Mattermost is a good alternative as privacy conscious alternative to slack, but with that license is a blocker.

[jamiew0w]

hi @grundleborg, is there any update regarding the proposed draft?

[grundleborg]

@chris-overton assigning you to this issue as discussed.

[mmgfrcs]

And this is still unresolved a year later?
So what license apply? AGPL, Apache, or Commercial?
Is the whole repo under this license, or part of it?
And why, in a single repo, there's 3 separate licenses applied? This is a confusing mess

[jgillich]

It would be much easier if everything was relicensed to AGPL. The current license makes no sense, you should be licensing the code, not the binaries

[KazimirPodolski]

This is not an issue with license, but with leadership. They want open source only for self-advertising and free contributions. Given project's track of corporate bullshit, this will never be fixed as it's not broken - the mess is exactly what mattermost wants.