Mattermost-server: convoluted license

[onlyjob]

Quoting LICENSE.txt

We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0 against you if your application (a) does not
link to the Mattermost Platform directly, but exclusively uses the Mattermost Admin Tools and Configuration Files, and
(b) you have not modified, added to or adapted the source code of Mattermost in a way that results in the creation of
a “modified version” or “work based on” Mattermost as these terms are defined in the AGPL v3.0 license.

Text is obviously _very difficult_ to understand. Wording is very ambiguous.
Would it be possible to re-phrase that paragraph please?
Perhaps mention that certain AGPL-3 paragraph do not apply?

[onlyjob]

I read (b) section as "no derivatives". :(
Modifications _must be allowed_ or it is not an "open source"...

[amyblais]

@crspeller Are you familiar with this, or do you know who to ask about this?

[crspeller]

This is an @it33 question.

[onlyjob]

Any progress here? This is how bad it really is:

We promise that we will not enforce the copyleft provisions in AGPL v3.0
against you if your application (a) does not link to the Mattermost Platform
directly, but(??) exclusively uses the Mattermost Admin Tools and Configuration Files...

I tried to remove double negation which unfortunately didn't make it much easier to understand yet made it feels like threat to users for something that AGPL guarantees you should be able to do...

Perhaps the whole AGPL exceptions paragraph should be removed as unnecessary and harmful.

I can't even figure out what they were trying to achieve by this paragraph... It could be a spill from commercial license that conflicts with AGPL effectively making Mattermost non-free...

[amyblais]

Hi @onlyjob!

This was just discussed with the team and we thought that this is more of a feature request - would you like to contribute this in the feature idea forum so it can be discussed, upvoted and considered for a help wanted ticket? If you do so, please include a link back to this GitHub issue. If you're interested in implementing, please say so and we'll prioritize the review.

[onlyjob]

There is not much for me to contribute... I can't possibly deduce the intention of problematic AGPL exceptions paragraph and IMHO it would be best to remove it entirely. Don't you think Mattermost should consult a lawyer? Is my report is not clear enough?

This is a serious licensing issue just like #8886. Even with stretch of imagination I don't understand how this problem can be considered to be merely a "feature request". First of all "feature" component is not here at all and secondly this is not about improvement suggestion but rather about exposing severe licensing flaw that effectively renders Mattermost non-free.

It should be possible to comply with the license...

[SmartHoneybee]

IANAL.

@onlyjob, I read the paragraph containing (b) as an AGPL relaxation.
Mattermost, Inc. states that, if (a) and (b) are fulfilled, they refrain from using some of their rights.
(not ((not A) and (not B)) is equivalent to A or B. Hence, [only enforce copyleft if] not ((not linked) and (not modified)) is equal to [only enforce copyleft if] (linked or modified).)

Regards,
Bee

[onlyjob]

This should be unambiguous and not subject to interpretration. Even if your interpretation is correct (how can you be sure?) it appears to be non-free anyway and who will vouch that users would trust an _interpretation_, yours, mine or enyone elses?

I'm pretty sure in its current state it won't pass DFSG check and if that's not enough then here is #8886 for you, which is another blocker... :-(

[SmartHoneybee]

Hi @onlyjob,

[...] should be unambiguous [...]

I agree.

how can you be sure?

By asking Mattermost, Inc. whether they agree with that interpretation. :slightly_smiling_face:
(Herewith, I'm officially asking. :wink: )

[...] appears to be non-free anyway [...]

Why is that? (What does "non-free" mean in this context? As defined by Debian Policy 2.2.3.?)

[...] DFSG check [...]

Pretty please (with sugar on top!), explain what you are talking about. People here are probably not familiar with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), the Debian Policy, or any other Debian term/concept. Please help others (including myself) understand.

If you're worried that the FTP Team will reject the package, maybe ask for advice on debian-legal?

8886 [...] is another blocker

If you say so. I'd say the only reason it's a "may" is that one is allowed to choose between two options.

Regards,
Bee

[onlyjob]

Thanks for providing so many links to Debian resources, @SmartHoneybee. :)

By asking Mattermost, Inc. whether they agree with that interpretation.

I doubt that would be enough... Ideally license grant should be changed and text of license improved to have no contradictions.

I think current license is _non-free_ i.e. imcompatible with free software definition.

Besides how can one comply with the license if it is nearly impossible to understand it? ;)

It is not worth asking _debian-legal_ for advise. I'm confident that current license would be rejected as non-compliant with Debian definition of free/open/libre software.

[SmartHoneybee]

Hi,

any news re these licensing issues?

Regards,
Bee

[grundleborg]

Thanks for the reminder @SmartHoneybee - I'm still working my way through the process of proposing and getting approval for this and the other tickets in this set. We've addressed 3/6 of them now, and hoping to get the remaining 3 addressed soon.

[SmartHoneybee]

Hi @grundleborg,

I'm still working my way through the process of proposing and getting approval for this and the other tickets in this set. We've addressed 3/6 of them now, and hoping to get the remaining 3 addressed soon.

awesome, thanks! Are those tickets public?

Regards,
Bee

[grundleborg]

8885 and #8886 are the remaining ones.

[onlyjob]

A _year_ passed...