Mattermost Restricted Access to Old Messages After 10000 Limit Is Reached
Key topics
The debate rages on around Mattermost's decision to restrict access to old messages after a 10,000 limit is reached, with some commenters pointing out that the MIT license allows users to remove this restriction in theory. However, others counter that the complexity of combining different licenses, such as AGPL and Apache License 2.0, makes forking and maintaining a custom version a daunting task. As one commenter quipped, "Combining source code under different licenses into one product is a nightmare." The discussion highlights the nuances of "open core" SaaS models and the challenges of navigating multiple licenses.
Snapshot generated from the HN discussion
Discussion Activity
Very active discussionFirst comment
60m
Peak period
92
0-6h
Avg / period
16
Based on 160 loaded comments
Key moments
- 01Story posted
Dec 25, 2025 at 6:03 AM EST
15 days ago
Step 01 - 02First comment
Dec 25, 2025 at 7:03 AM EST
60m after posting
Step 02 - 03Peak activity
92 comments in 0-6h
Hottest window of the conversation
Step 03 - 04Latest activity
Dec 29, 2025 at 11:49 AM EST
11 days ago
Step 04
Generating AI Summary...
Analyzing up to 500 comments to identify key contributors and discussion patterns
Want the full context?
Jump to the original sources
Read the primary article or dive into the live Hacker News thread when you're ready.
The source code is... AGPL licensed? But not the admin tools. They seem to be licensed under the Apache License 2.0.
--------
Yeah, good luck. Contact your lawyer.
You have to follow the AGPL "no additional restrictions" clause while also following the Apache License, and the Apache License might have require you to follow additional restrictions.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
Now couple that with the fact that supply-chain control is profitable (legally or illegally); I think the next 5-10 years will be interesting.
The open source community really needs to stop with the "just fork it" mindset.
I think the implication is that some other interested org could very easily step in and assume the role that the Mattermost org was in, and everyone would very eagerly switch and leave Mattermost itself speaking to an empty room.
Most people want security fixes.
The open source community really needs to stop with the "just do everything i want for free" mindset.
I mean, open source does not mean you're entitled to free support, and free in free software is not about money. I think people depend too much on those projects and then act entitled.
Of course the open source bait and switch done by companies is a shitty behavior worth calling out, but the companies exist to earn money and at this point this can be expected.
I do think this development represents a bait and switch though.
Yes, that’s what we are doing here.
> but the companies exist to earn money and at this point this can be expected.
Expected != ethical. Also not a necessary, logical outcome.
What is legitimately expected is a pro version that has more corporate features. We’re not talking about $Xx/user/mo to enable SSO here, though.
Well I did it for Mattermost and for some other software as well. Sure, its some work, but it's not "a ton" of work and may not be "trivial" but it is also not "far" from trivial.
Do it like Linux maintainers maintain a ton of patched RPM's, deb's, etc. Just keep a patch in GIT. For every release of Mattermost you do a GIT clone, apply your patch and build it. Most of the time the patch will just apply cleanly. Sometimes you need to make a few adjustments, you make them and put them in GIT. There is no extensive release management or anything. You just build a patched version for every released version.
It's right mindset. Just not applicable to projects that are made majority by the company because none of the contributors will move so it's essentially trying to make new team from scratch.
Wanting to use Mattermost's binaries rather than building from source?
Re licensing see: https://isitreallyfoss.com/projects/mattermost/
I've invented this heuristic: if the page that describes the project uses the word "solutions", then they'll attempt to use "open source" to obtain free labour, but will distribute the revenues only amongst those people who actually have control.
I really don't get what you're implying. I don't see any problem with the photos on the mattermost front page.
https://mattermost.com/
It's "open source" so that they save on developer costs, not for ideological reasons, and you can tell from the photos on their front page - that's what I was implying.
Think "enterprise", rather than "racism".
> A new compiled version is released under an MIT license every month on the 16th.
What does than even mean? Is it equivalent to what we use to call "freeware". Is it legal to modify the binaries?
The FSF calls it a "free license" [1] and I don't think they would if they didn't make the source code available.
Source code available is necessary but not sufficient for Free software, see [2]
> Freedoms 1 and 3 require source code to be available because studying and modifying software without its source code can range from highly impractical to nearly impossible.
[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#Expat
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software
EDIT Oh sorry, you mean for the LICENSE to be available. Never mind then.
You are thinking of copyleft (e.g. GPL)
For most, but not all, software. Stallman did famously argue for libvorbis, which you may know as the ogg codec used mostly by games and spotify, to be licensed under BSD instead of the (L)GPL.
MIT/BSD licenses are pro-business - any business can take the product, change a few lines and redistribute the result without making their changes available.
GPL is pro-user - anyone who gets the source, makes changes, and then redistributes the result has to make their changed sources available as well.
It is true; the license gives you the source, to do with as you please, including closing it off.
Famously, Microsoft included BSD licensed tools in Windows since the 90s and did not distribute the sources!
And that is completely legal. If you want to force the users to distribute their changes to your open source product when they are redistributing the product, you need to use GPL.
That is why companies and corpo programmers LOVE BSD/MIT code, they can freely steal I mean use it in their for-profit products without giving anything back but some bit of text hidden in about box
I suppose with "freeware" technically you could be prevent from redistributing or selling it. As there is no hard definition on that term.
Not really? FOSS communities overestimate their importance on a daily basis.
Now VC's want their money so gotta make people that can't be bothered to get off it to migrate to paid plan
FOSS never came with any guarantee of “builds must arrive in format most convenient for users.” That’s not in the license. Also not in the license, “FOSS companies can’t charge money for their builds.”
Now Go being easy to get builds running makes it less painful, but still, the entire reason it is in codebase is to add friction.
> If anything, it’s quite a bit of entitlement that “FOSS companies must provide free code, and free builds, forever, or they are evil.” Especially when they are getting VC money to presumably add features that otherwise would not exist and would have no code available at all.
I don't consider "OSS license with CLA forcing code rights assignment" to be FOSS. It being closed source would be better for everyone (but them) because less people would get baited into bait and switch and maybe support less insidiously managed projects.
Push uses _their_ services. That's why it costs $$$. But you can build your own apns endpoint and plug into that at that volume
They only give free accounts to non-profits with zero paid staff.
Ref: https://zulip.com/plans/#self-hosted-sponsorships
Zulip (for Slack) and Wekan (for Trello) are good replacements, save yourself the ethical and technical worries.
https://zulip.com/
https://wekan.github.io/
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5147321
Edit: sorry, hotheaded reply. I assume you mean that the creator of mIRC was aware of it and encouraging it. It's still not ccomparable, but I see your point.
Like most licensed software, it was likely licensed by “US Government” or “Department of Defense”. Plus, it was openly written about back in the day. It was well known. No clauses in their licensing to prevent its use for those purposes.
Comparing to Mattermost and amplifying the original comment, Mattermost website is openly associating with PlatformOne.
https://p1.dso.mil/
Crucially, it's end to end encrypted.
You can self-host it, or pay for having it hosted (or use the hosted free tier).
Has other things in addition to kanban.
I got a 1 yr account.
https://cryptpad.fr/
I don't think it's all that crucial for something that at most gets some ticket descriptions on it
And even if you use it only for bug ticketing there are products that are big enough that it takes a long time to implement changes. You really don’t want outsiders to be able to read open bug tickets for security vulnerabilities you are working on fixing for example. And you also don’t want outsiders to read your planned features either, probably.
I think it makes perfect sense to use e2e encryption for bug tickets considering this.
I know it’s somewhat of a tired observation by now but I still wonder every time how badly you have to misread LOTR to name your company after the witch kings cursed surveillance artefacts.
I wonder when the first weapons manufacturing company calls themselves Angmar or Uruk-hai.
The names are really dope though I have to give them that…
Luckily/unluckily, AngMar is one of those shady medical subcontracting firms instead...
Have you considered that it is not "misread", they just see themselves on Saruman side ?
But you are right of course about Anduril and if you take the whole silmarillion as background. I never really liked that part though
The seven stars of Gondor’s sign are likely a reference to them.
The witch-king could in theory have used a Palantir, but there’s no suggestion he did.
And the Palantiri were artifacts given by the Elves to the greatest race of Men to govern their kingdom. No connection to the witch-king (except some post-Tolkien video game).
It was a Mike Judge type joke, aka ha-ha only serious.
Wonder whether they do weapons integrations for this. Urgh.
I'm sure organisations in war would do similar things, but with the tools of their 'craft'.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46379589
and still no one from that company has admitted to it being a mistake?
very nice
80 more comments available on Hacker News