Remove note about reference implementations #1966
Conversation
Fixes: matrix-org#1962 Signed-off-by: Johannes Marbach <[email protected]>
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Note sure if this is the right place but #1627 also put its changelog here.
| - Fully open source reference implementation - liberally-licensed | ||
| example implementations with no IP or patent licensing | ||
| encumbrances |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh, where is this from?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's from the foundation's rules (Guiding Principles) https://matrix.org/media/2019-06-10%20-%20Matrix.org%20Foundation%20CIC%20Rules.pdf
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm, but then there are no reference implementations in existence today? I'm not sure if the foundation still considers this as one of its future goals. If it does, I guess we can also keep the part of the spec that mentions reference implementations.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Regardless of the aspirations of the foundation, there are currently no reference implementations (of either clients or servers), so the spec should not claim that there are.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is the list of
The principles that Matrix attempts to follow
Are they not "aspirations"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
the text says: "In particular, it is envisaged that the Foundation will undertake the following activities:" - i.e. these are aspirations as written in 2018. Other details there (e.g. referring to an "mx:// URI scheme") are also wrong. The bug here is that the Rules haven't been updated since first being conceived, and are overdue being updated to reflect how the Foundation's scope has evolved (by the guardians in consultation with the governing board).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I am referring to https://github.com/Johennes/matrix-spec/blob/083e6ef25da712eecc1b56a8e3a2fafaf48d130d/content/_index.md?plain=1#L48
It seems incorrectly phrased in the spec then and should also have been adjusted with this PR. Or perhaps this list should not be here at all in favor of a link to the document Gnuxie cited.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ugh, I hadn't realised that the heading of this list was "The principles that Matrix attempts to follow are:". I thought this bit of the spec was just a statement of fact, rather than a list of what the Matrix project is trying to achieve. I guess I should have read more carefully. (In my defence, I'd rather bias to action than agonise over every change.)
But it does make this PR less obviously correct. If time and money were unlimited, would the Matrix Foundation nowadays seek to maintain liberally-licensed reference implementations? Probably? It's not obvious (eg, W3C does not maintain reference implementations for HTML.) It's an open question, to be resolved by the Matrix guardians and governing board.
I guess it feels like this whole section of the spec is a bit outdated and out-of-place. (AFAICT, it was written in 2014 and has been barely touched since.) I'd rather the spec were stating the current fact, and the hopes and dreams of the matrix project were written elsewhere.
Not entirely sure how best to proceed here, but I'm inclined to take time to think about it rather than rush anything.
Fixes: #1962
Pull Request Checklist
Preview: https://pr1966--matrix-spec-previews.netlify.app