<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://hsnl.social/@eloy" class="u-url mention">@<span>eloy</span></a></span> precisely</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> same energy with for-profit companies built around a single &quot;open&quot; spec/standard that in practice is controlled by that single entity (like Matrix, from what I can tell, but I&#39;ve had a similar impression to Bluesky)</p>

<p>to those who tell me it&#39;s not AGPLv3&#39;s fault:<br />- i claim this is the primary way in which the AGPLv3 license is utilized, in terms of number of deployments<br />- FSF encourages &quot;selling exceptions&quot;<br />- FSF encourages copyright assignment<br />therefore, FSF and AGPLv3 explicitly encourage this behavior. even if you try to claim it is not the &quot;intended&quot; one, it is the one that happens in practice</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.acc.sunet.se/@maswan" class="u-url mention">@<span>maswan</span></a></span> Isn&#39;t the CLA the part that is enabling the stealing? AGPLv3 for thee but not for me.</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> just don&#39;t sign the CLA, if people have contributions they can put them in other repos and everyone other than Element will benefit :P</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> <span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.acc.sunet.se/@maswan" class="u-url mention">@<span>maswan</span></a></span> Yep. Licenses apply to people that do not own the code. People that own the code, own the code, and get to choose what licenses others can use.</p><p>If you sign a CLA, they own the code. They can deny you the right to use your own code under AGPL unless AGPL itself has guards against that.</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> The problem is the CLA, not the (A)GPL.</p>

<p><span class="h-card" translate="no"><a href="https://mastodon.social/@whitequark" class="u-url mention">@<span>whitequark</span></a></span> So they are indeed a shit project with CLA as a warning to future contributors.</p>

<p>yes, element does have a CLA, which they adopted simultaneously with AGPLv3 <a href="https://element.io/blog/element-to-adopt-agplv3/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no"><span class="invisible">https://</span><span class="ellipsis">element.io/blog/element-to-ado</span><span class="invisible">pt-agplv3/</span></a></p><p>(i consider AGPL a regressive force on the whole, and this kind of stuff is why. GNU even encourages it!)</p>