February 2, 2026
Schrödinger’s License, Open‑Source Panic
Mattermost say they will not clarify what license the project is under
“Maybe” License? Community Says “Maybe we leave”
TLDR: Mattermost declined to clearly state its license, sticking with “may be licensed” language that confused users. The community erupted—calling the license “insane,” threatening to leave for rivals, and joking about decompiling binaries—because open-source projects live or die by trust and crystal-clear rules.
Mattermost stepped on a legal landmine by telling users its code “may be licensed,” and the community lit up like a fireworks show. One longtime contributor begged for a clear, standard AGPL grant (that’s a share‑alike license that requires giving back your changes), but got corporate shrug-speak instead. When a Mattermost rep argued “may” meant permission, not doubt, the crowd heard one thing: confusion. Months later, the frustration boiled over—“Is it really that hard to fix the license text?” became the rallying cry.
Commenters delivered spicy one‑liners and eye‑rolls. One mocked the PR tone (“not entertaining any changes as such”), another called the whole license “somewhat insane,” linking to the LICENSE file. A user announced they were shutting down their private Mattermost server and eyeing rival Zulip. The memes wrote themselves: “choose‑your‑own‑license adventure,” “legal spaghetti,” even a deadpan query about decompiling the MIT‑licensed binaries for a clean re‑release.
Mattermost floated a compromise—AGPL for everyone, with a commercial option for those who hate AGPL’s rules—but critics said it was still too conditional. The vibe? Trust broken. In open source, clarity is currency, and this “maybe” moment cost a lot. The comment section didn’t just complain—it packed its bags.
Key Points
- •A GitHub issue raised concerns that Mattermost’s LICENSE text used ambiguous wording (“may be licensed”).
- •The reporter requested an unmodified AGPL-3+ license grant to ensure unambiguous open-source licensing.
- •Mattermost contributors asked for clearer issue filing and proposed clarifying language for dual licensing (AGPL or commercial).
- •Proposed wording tied licensing to creating compiled versions not produced by Mattermost, Inc., which the reporter rejected as too limiting.
- •The thread links to a related “convoluted license” issue, with continued calls for standard AGPL-3+ language.