Rocket.Chat
Installation does NOT ALLOW to SKIP "Register Workspace" with your CLOUD service and agree to your terms etc #32797
Replies: 30 comments 18 replies
-
|
This is a support issue, not a bug. Note that Rocket.Chat is open source, but that relates to reading and modification of code. I believe you have to register even for CE. You can do that offline - see the docs. Please ask on open.rocket.chat #support Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I believe you can possibly bypass the registration screen with this but I am not sure what will work.
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I tend to think that this is not a support question, because it seems more like a bug to not have the option to skip the cloud registration and privacy policy on a "self-hosted install" without modifying the source code. Sending people away to a secluded chat and closing this ticket quickly will prevent others from being aware of this problem beforehand or seeing a solution. (And 'if' that's on purpose, I think it's not the right way to deal with this. ) Kindly offer the "solution" here, where a lot more people can see and benefit, versus some chat room. I thought I had tried something similar to what you said, in mongosh but it did not seem to work. Thank you! |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
In case it helps others, I was able to skip the registration of workspace and agreement to privacy policy but it is important that we receive "CLARIFICATION" that setting the environment variable to "COMPLETED" if in fact it SKIPS it instead of actually marking you off as having truly "completed" the registration and agreed to their privacy policy etc. Setting it in db fields in mongosh didn't work, the only thing that worked was creating environment variable of OVERWRITE_SETTING_Setup_Wizard and setting it to "completed". Again would be nice to have it say "skipped" instead of "completed", because we obviously do NOT want to "complete" it, so hopefully in effect it does do an OPT-OUT. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Ok. Rocket works as intended. It might not be what you want, but that doesn't make this is a bug ie a breakage in code. You misunderstand what open source means. The source is there for you to view, modify etc. That doesn't mean anything is "free" (that was a really poor choice of words many years ago). Fortunately for you the workaround I showed still works. For now. Note that I can also advise that this workaround will be deprecated before long, so be prepared to have to register one way or another - don't shoot the messenger. You can speak to me on open where I can explain more, if you are interested. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'm guessing you represent the RocketChat company or the developers in some way? (Since it seems you can close other people's tickets, Or can anyone close anyone else's tickets and I'm just blind and didn't notice how?) If that's the official message that you are delivering to us, if you're saying that we should get used to further efforts to force us who "self-host" to sign onto the cloud, that makes me wonder if such a company is in favor of open source in the long-run, or if it was just the plan to garner quick publicity and widespread usage which it wouldn't have achieved without an open source license. I hope such worries can be alleviated, since these forced registrations are worrisome. I do know what a truly open source license such as MIT was meant for, especially in contrast to AGPL license or an "open source" proprietary license. Is there any plan going forward for a gradual move to a more proprietary model? Because I think it's a fair concern that if those behind a project are so "determined" to force something on everyone, even self-hosted, that this desire at some point may very well lead to a license change if it's "easily foiled" in the code. Also, to me communication on github is "gold", it's like going on "record", compared to some chat in a chatroom that does not get indexed by any search engine and can disappear without anyone really noticing, it's like private vs public. You have a right to license and do as you wish of course, I just simply want to know which way this is going, since I'm just starting to use it and it would be a good time for me to switch if the license will not remain MIT. One big reason I wanted to get on board with this project was specifically because you actively advertise yourselves as different from those other companies just pretending to love open source: https://www.rocket.chat/platform/open-source The MIT license is great for us end users who want to self-host. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
A bug tracker is to track bugs. This isn't one. That's it. There are no plans I am aware of to change the licencing. Equally the licencing does not prevent Rocket insisting on registration, or charging for services. (You probably ought to go back and read some history here, and my involvment in it) You can of course fork it, and within the licence terms do whatever you want with it if you aren't happy. Please, continue this discussion on open, or the forums, which are the right places for discussions on open source. Ask me anything you want there (you can always screenshot posts if you feel it is necessary to make it more "public") and I'll be happy to discuss it. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@reetp Well I've laid out my concerns already, and for now I got my problem solved and skipped registration. If you can send me a link where I can read the history you were referring to I'd appreciate it and I'll try to read up when I have time. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You don't need to @ anyone There is a search feature here, in the forums, and open if you are interested enough. I'd also suggest you have a read about what open source really is, and what "free" software really means. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sure, if you can't link to any starting point, I'll try search for the 'history' you mentioned when I have time to search etc. take care |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
@jittygitty Thanks for opening this issue! I was wondering if the software continues phoning home some way or another even if you skip the "register workspace" useless cloud stuff. Could you confirm if this is occurring on your specific instance? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please read the docs. https://docs.rocket.chat/docs/license-application
You can air gap an install but will still need a licence. Again, please understand the difference between 'Free' and 'open source' Please direct any further questions to the forums or https://open.rocket.chat Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I apologise but I'm not gonna sign up on this website because I prefer my answers to be indexed by search engines to help more people who will have this problem. Rocket Chat has a free tier so I don't get why I would need a license. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
No need to apologise. However, this is not a bug. The answers are already here, so no one is missing anything. You can discuss further on the forums if you wish. They are open and indexed. So no need to worry about anything being missed.
Rocket.Chat has a "Community Edition" with licencing conditions. Do not confuse that with "free". Again, please appraise yourself of "open source". The source code is there for you to read and use. That does not mean you don't need to register or get a licence regardless of the "tier". To continue this discusion please use an appropriate forum. https://forums.rocket.chat Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
ItsQuadrus, take a look at #31163 (comment) As far as I know, rocketchat community edition that's available here is MIT licensed. Therefore, you shouldn't need any other license, if there is some other license mechanism you would be free to remove it from the code completely. My concern was indeed that the seeming shifting attitude of the developers may lead them to "change" the MIT license. Again, in a previous comment here (above) I quoted their website: So obviously if that is true, then you absolutely do "not" need to register or get any license from them since it is MIT. If they wish to change that, and to force registering or getting some other license, they'll need to "ditch" MIT license. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Note - I am not a Rocket employee. I have been a community member since not long after Rocket open sourced (I've been involved with open source for over 25 years). A few years ago I worked for Rocket.Chat for a short period as community manager. Part of the reason I left was my concerns about changes in CE and licencing...... I am a trusted community member here now, and though I do not speak for the company, I know the company philosophy and how some of this works. Their answers likely won't diverge much from mine. MIT is the licence under which you can use and redistribute code. It does not state whether the developer can or can't enforce some form of registration for use. It does permit you to modify the code as you wish, so you can fork it and remove anything you object too, as long as you keep the licence in the code. However, remember that though EE code is publicly published - ie open source - it is under a different licence and cannot be used in the same way as CE code.
Actually, no they don't. As advised the MIT licence does not prohibit registration, and you have the ability to modify said code if you choose. Don't like it? Remove it. As far as I am aware there are no current plans to do that. I have long fought to keep as much 'free' as long as possible. Believe me, things could have been far more restrictive than they currently are. But be careful what you wish for. Rocket.Chat have to make some money somehow, or they go bust, and you get no "free" code at all. Rocket.Chat could enforce a different licence, or stay with MIT and restrict access to paying customers only. Then what are you going to do? Note what happened at RedHat and their "open source" GPL licenced software...... I suggest you read about that and have a long hard think about the implications. I know none of this is what you want to hear, but that is because you misunderstand what open source really means. It is not a free lunch, or free beer. Remember, you could take the CE source remove restrictions, and add your own registration!! Personally I might don't always agree entirely with some aspects here (and quietly fight for the community) but I do understand how and why. As I have said repeatedly, you can talk to me in more depth on the forums (entirely public) or open for more information. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I don't think I could have written or explained the item in better words than reetp. Registering of workspace being needed is something that will not be changed at this point. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reetp, sorry but I think you contradicted yourself, or we have a totally different definition of some words like "enforce" or something. As I said, we were always talking about RocketChat community edition. Which again, twice before I quoted: https://www.rocket.chat/platform/open-source So, you can "not" make those statements you did, together, without them contradicting each other, you said:
My point is this, obviously I do not see how a developer can possibly "ENFORCE" some form of registration or anything, IF the license is MIT license and we are free to REMOVE any registration. You can say they can ANNOY us with registrations junk left in code, but you can "not" use the word "Enforce" because they have no way to "enforce" their desire, no way to "force" us, because MIT lets us remove any registration they put in there or any other nag screen or anything else we don't like. If they do want a license that allows them to "force" and "enforce" a registration so that we're not allowed to legally remove it, then as I said before, they would have to ditch MIT. Anyway, who knows, maybe your definition of "enforce" or "force" is a whole lot different than mine, which I thought meant "legally". Bottom line, Rocket.Chat developers are free to keep their registration code in there and even to try and make it increasingly annoying to remove it, at which point someone will likely make a viable fork. Users can't force developers to remove any annoying/registration etc code, and neither can rocket.chat developers force end users to "register" and keep the registration code, we're free to remove it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
The problem here is the dfference between what you want to believe, and reality. You are trying to make points to support your own view of open source, which you still haven't understood is fundamentally flawed. The MIT licence only tells you what you can and cannot do with the code. It does not determine what Rocket.Chat can or cannot do with the code it develops or services it charges for. Rocket.Chat are perfectly entitled to "insist/enforce/whatever adjective you want to take issue with" on whatever they want. Rocket.Chat can say "if you want to use the code, here and now, as is, you need to register." That's their condition of use, here and now. And they can insist on it. Or enforce, as in it won't work if you don't register. Choose whatever expression you are comfortable with. It won't change facts. That has nothing to do with your ability to take the code and modify it as per MIT, including removing registration requirements if you want. Don't conflate the two points. Equally they can say "if you have more than 25/whatever number of users you have to pay" etc etc. As a counter you can fork it and do whatever you want, within the terms of the licence. As per your quotes, if you fork and modify the code for your own use - eg remove registration - then go for - your life. They aren't stopping you. (You can't hack EE code) What you want of course is both sides. Rocket.Chat to supply you with code, for nothing, free of any encumbrance whatsoever (without you having to try and fork and unpick code, and maintain it continuously). They are not obliged to do that. I have to admit I struggled for some time with the difference between "free" as in lunch/beer and "free" as in take a copy of the current code and do as you see fit. This is a massive issue caused by the use of "free software" rather than "open source". I am not unsympathetic to the corner you fight, but it comes from a really bad marketing slogan which has caused havoc in open source for years, and where users think they can have everything for literally nothing, and developers who write code are entitled to.... Nothing? (Not to mention damage done by profiteering VC companies...) I personally know a number of open source projects that have either closed source or stopped developing because everyone expected everything for nothing, including free support. The devs couldn't feed their families... Irony as the users who wanted it for nothing now probably have to use paid for alternatives. A greedy few have wrecked a lot for many. So in essence, Rocket.Chat can insist on whatever they want, and equally if you don't like that under MIT you can fork the code and use it in any way you want. Simple as that. One question for you. Who do you expect to pay for Rocket.Chat development and backend systems? What are you prepared to pay to keep Rocket.Chat in business? (And nope, donations don't cut it for most projects) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Not to rub salt into the wound but no need for a large backend for "free tier users" (or whatever you want to call it) if there wasn't a registration system to begin with. If people pay for the entreprise tiers (like a deployment in the cloud managed by Rocket Chat themselves), they would effectively cover costs for the backend. I mean if you want statistics, just implement some optional anonymised telemetry and that's it. That's totally acceptable. But morally you should tell the user how to disable it like thousands of other open source projects. Again you're not obliged to do it, but you really should if you don't want people to annoy you about it. Most people won't care to do it or maybe they actually want to support the project instead of fighting against its undesirable behavior. I don't really get why you're also talking about the Rocket Chat developers needing money when we're just talking about the fact that we're "forced" to register in the cloud on a self-hosted deployment. See the discrepancy? Maybe it doesn't shock people here... The fact that we're unable to fully air-gap a deployment, at least without editing the source code, is pretty bad in my opinion. I agree that open-source doesn't always mean free, but it also doesn't mean paid. We're not quite talking about the same things here. What I think @jittygitty is talking about (and that I fully agree with) is that the software is not free as in freedom therefore it is not a LIBRE software (open source doesn't always mean libre). Please read more about it here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html
Rocket Chat is not a libre software.
Companies paying for tiers in https://www.rocket.chat/pricing So I can think of projects such as MariaDB, MySQL or Docker using Community Editions. That means they usually license their software under an open-source license, and they earn money by selling Entreprise Editions or SaaS stuff to businesses (and donations). A CE usually doesn't have any arbitrary limitations. And usually works air-gapped.
A "free" license? Is this the embodiment of cloud free tier scams, but in an open source self-hosted software? Imagine I go fast-forward 10 years and Rocket Chat stops everything: no more servers, no backend, no more updates.
Will the software still continue to work, or would it depend on license verification servers that no longer exist? Precisely this, unfortunately, could be a sign of vendor lock in. I'm heavily simplifying here, but you get the point. If the software makes any sort of communication to a server, would you call that an air-gapped software? Is a phoning-home-on-premise deployment really air-gapped? This is the one thing that keeps me from switching from Mattermost to Rocket Chat, and many more people that are in the same situation as me (and I know a few of them). Sorry to break it to the maintainers if this wasn't obvious that this is a dealbreaker for some people, but it is. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please note here I am NOT trying to argue per se, but to explain the rational behind business decisions that Rocket.Chat take. These might not be the explanations you want to hear, but that doesn't make them wrong.
Ask yourself why should they pay so you can have it all for free? Where does the line fall between paying and not paying?
As a business Rocket.Chat are entitled to do exactly as they wish under whatever terms they want. A user under an MIT licence can take the code, that has countless man hours of work and expense, for free, and do whatever you want. Is that really unreasonable?
Because it is part of their overall business strategy to stay in business. That is what they choose to do. They do not have to justify it or explain it all. It is the 'price' you will have to pay for using the software 'as is'. If you don't agree with that then you have the choice to fork and remove anything you don't like. I don't see any discrepancy. I see people who don't like Rocket.Chats business terms, fail to understand what open source means, and want to make up their own terms.
Where did you read that? You are able fully air-gap it. But you will need a licence. Please read the docs and don't make assumptions. https://docs.rocket.chat/docs/rocketchat-air-gapped-deployment https://docs.rocket.chat/docs/air-gapped-license
Again, please read the docs instead of jumping to conclusions. Your software would continue to work if they go bust.
That is a false analogy and the core of your misunderstanding. Open source has no relationship to price (better known legally as 'consideration' - it doesn't always have to be cash). You conflate the two items. The code could be completely open source AND completely paid for. For Enterprise users that is the case. Equally, closed source could be 'free'. Again, it isn't generally, but could be.
You haven't read the documentation thoroughly. See above. Yup, maybe one day they will insist on permanent communications, but that isn't right now. You can completely air-gap with no direct communications to their servers at all.
Who said it was? You might want it to be, or imagine it is, but they don't say that. Rocket.Chat state that their code is open source under a MIT licence. That's it. No more, no less.
Exactly this. Sustainable. And part of their route to sustainability to be able to continue to provide and support CE is this. Equally they could just shut up shop and go closed source. What would you say then? They generously release the code under a MIT licence for you to use as you wish. Even the proprietary EE code is open source - you can read all the code but there are limits on what you can do with it. If you don't like their terms of use then you are welcome to take the CE code and do whatever you want with it. Rocket.Chat are not chaining you to to their terms if you want to do your own thing. You have to make a value judgement whether that suits you or not. The problem is as I outlined before. The normal conundrum with 'open source' vs 'free'. Users want to have their cake, and eat it. All the upsides, with no downsides. The logical extension to that is everyone wants "somebody" to write all their code for free, and hope that "some company" will pay the developers for it. The problem is when no one wants to pay. And that is the case for almost all open source projects. How to stay in business if they can't leverage some people to pay in some way or another? And yes the 'consideration' could be doing some documentation, or helping support users in forums, or bug triage. But as I have heard so many times when I have asked users to either donate or help in some way they tell me they have no money and are too busy at work (ie making money) to be able to help.... Rocket.Chats solution is a compromise. If it doesn't suit you then you do have options. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
PS Again, I understand where you are all coming from, and I was under plenty of illusions about open source for a quite a long time. As I have said before, a lot of this is due to poor press and poor choice of words and phrases. In a perfect world everything would be libre. It is a dream to aspire too. The reality is that very few company based open source projects are completely, genuinely, 'libre'. Is Mattermost? No - it is open source with various paid for restrictions, just like Rocket.Chat As I have mentioned, I have seen companies go to the wall and/or close source because they just couldn't make ends meet. Rocket.Chats approach is pragmatic, not perfect. I fight most days to keep it as 'open source' as possible - you can see some of my more public spats here on github! I am fortunate to have many good contacts inside Rocket and have some influence on the direction of the code which I use to try and keep it as community oriented as we can. I believe in open source, and communities, but have learned over a period of time that most code would be closed source unless developers take a stick and carrot approach to users. No business using software wants to pay for it if they can help it. It's an overhead they'll duck out of if at all possible. I have seen cloud based VC back companies takes open source software from a small company, rebrand it, and sell it by the truck load for vast profit to their clients, and contribute zero back to the developers. And then complain about bugs not being fixed fast enough etc.... If you want to be angry and upset at people, don't take it out on the likes of Rocket.Chat who are trying to do their best, but look at the huge free loaders who have messed it up for the rest of us. As I have previously mentioned, if you want to influence what goes on, GET INVOLVED. Just as I once did. You CAN make a difference. The team DO listen to those who get involved. If you want to chat about this, and some of the other reasoning behind certain decisions (and some history), and how you can get involved, then please find me as reetp on https://open.rocket.chat |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Simply put, putting the code under a MIT license then forcing the users to accept other terms might be legal is scummy behavior for me. If I wasn't clear enough already, I'm making a clear statement that open source means that the user has the freedom to use, study, modify, and distribute the software or code, but I also know it doesn't dictate whether users should pay or not (hence the "not free nor paid") Therefore, I don't think anything I've said about open-source is false. I'm simply saying that open-source projects typically won't go towards the approach of spying on users without them being able to easily disable telemetry. Maybe you don't consider telemetry to be that bad, but for my community it is. Rocket Chat wouldn't launch probably because of my (way too) complex networking environment. So if I wanted to run it, I could do two things:
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
These are two separate things that you keep conflating. If you want to use the code as is then you have to accept Rockets terms of business as well. But the CODE is MIT licenced which means you can take the code to do what you want with it. These two things are NOT the same.
The trouble is you want to combine 1 and 2. And you can't. That is the pragmatic compromise.
No, it is just based on the wrong assumptions.
If you seriously believe that you haven't read enough source code :-) Very very few that are backed by some form of business or investment don't have SOME form of tracking. Yup there may be volunteer backed projects that don't. But from experience I can tell you that almost everything has SOMETHING in there. Why ? If nothing else to tell you how many users you have or say what extensions are popular, what features are used most etc so you can work on those things FOR YOUR USERS BENEFIT!! Not all tracking is bad. I can tell you from experience that trying to make good code that users WANT without knowing anything about them and their usage and requirements is very hard......
Again, you need to be far more specific and consider what your community may benefit from.
Yup
Yup it is free as in 'beer' :-) Starter has all features up to 25 users (that was something I helped get - they weren't going to offer it at all....) CE is OK up to about 200 users with restricted features eg push notifications, read receipts etc, but with air gap you won't get them anyway. Beyond 200 or so scaling without micro architecture gets more difficult. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Call me a freeloader or anything you want but I'm just saying that requiring an Internet connection only to automatically send telemetry is childish. Rocket.Chat will refuse to work if it can't do that. Some sort of fail-safe I guess. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I really don't understand this sentence, especially the "as is" part. If I want to use the code licensed under MIT for any purposes, I only have to follow the MIT license and not anything else. That's it. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
This Register Offline button doesn't exist. I'm still gonna go the Rocket.Chat Support Customer Self Service Portal. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
You need to follow the docs PRECISELY. If it detects any connection I think it disables the button. https://docs.rocket.chat/docs/rocketchat-air-gapped-deployment |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Amazing stuff. Is this some sort of IP block? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
"Hello x, This is an automated message. We could not find a support contract for your organization, which probably means you are using a Community Workspace or you are subscribed to the Starter Plan, for which we do not offer dedicated support. If you believe this is a mistake, please ensure you are using your company email address, or have your team's designated Authorized User submit the ticket instead. If neither helps, please reach out to your CSM. Note that Rocket.Chat provides several options for community support. The best for this case would be to raise your issue on our forums at https://forums.rocket.chat or a GitHub issue at https://github.com/RocketChat/Rocket.Chat/issues. Our community usually does a great job in assisting others. Also, please check our support policy here https://docs.rocket.chat/resources/get-support. If you would like to purchase one of our support plans, please check our pricing page for details and use our sales contact form. Best Regards, Rocket.Chat Support" What is a "community workspace" and how I'm supposed to "subscribe" to the Starter plan to begin with. It just seems like no one at Rocket.Chat has ever tested this. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Note this is not really the place for support. Forums or open.rocket.chat are better. I am sure that some of the documentation could do with some work - your are free to open a documentation issue as the team will be glad of the feedback. Nothing is perfect in this world :-)
When you open a cloud account for registration you get a 30 day trial of either 'EE' or 'Pro' - I forget which - which drops to 'Starter'. You can then downgrade that to 'Community'. There is information on open.rocket. or forums on how to do that:
If you really wanted air gapped you can contact Rocket for a licence as per the docs. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
This is the automated message I get. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Here they talk about CE: https://docs.rocket.chat/docs/our-plans#community Here they don't: https://www.rocket.chat/pricing I'm basically unable to get to CE unless I go through Starter. When I request for an air-gapped "Starter" (or "CE", anything's fine) license, it basically tells me "pay us or we won't help you". |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Please contact me at open.rocket.chat I'll need some of your workspace & contact details to be able to pass it to support and I don't think you want to be showing those in public :-) Just ping me in #support and I can DM you, but I can't do any more here. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reetp, you are potentially confusing a lot of people by your apparent self-contradictions. I think your apparent self-contradictions arise due to you "not" using the word force/enforce as meaning to make not complying with something, "illegal". So, it seems your idea of "enforce" is that; if rocketchat developers put some "code" in the MIT github repository for rocket.chat that leaves no way to skip registration, that then this to you is "enforcing" registration. But to me/us that's not "enforcing" because it's not legally "enforceable". Do you agree that confusion arose because you were not using the word "enforcing" as to mean to enforce in any "legal" manner? My point is that this is not "enforcing" because we have all the legal rights to download the source and modify/edit/cut out the code with the registration. Also, technically rocket.chat devleopers COULD legally put the MIT code behind paywall, some Linux distros have done this at times (especially with some embedded systems), but as soon as a customer paid to get "access" to that "open-source" code, that customer could then very legally post it for free to the entire world, because the GPL/MIT/Apache etc all allow that. So please try to avoid making judgements saying that what I have been saying is not "reality". If you do some digging, you will find that I have written at length about some open-source licensing "intricacies". So please think a bit more before implying that I am clueless. If you make such claims, please quote something from what I have said, and prove via external sources, legal or otherwise, how what I said is false and outside of "reality". So please "show" how what I said of MIT "open-source", is so "fundamentally flawed" as you said. Let me make another clear example, WORDPRESS mandates that all "plugins" are derivative works, and hence must be "GPL" licensed. Yet you will find online a "gazillion" plugins that are indeed GPL licensed but the authors won't let you download them unless you pay. That is perfectly within their legal rights. The problem is that as soon as someone gets a hold of a copy, they are also "legally" free to distribute and use that as many times as they want without paying a penny to the original author. That is why you see a bunch of sites letting you access "tons of non-free" Wordpress plugins for Free, and they can't be shutdown, because they are doing nothing "illegal". So, what "exactly" did I say that is "wrong/false"? I stand by what I said in https://github.com/orgs/RocketChat/discussions/32797#discussioncomment-10066545 and I think the bottom-line summary was quite accurate to explain that RocketChat developers can do whatever they want in the code, and we're free to do whatever we want to the code once we download it. They can do things in the code to annoy us, sure, but they can't do anything to "legally" force us to accept anything, any registration etc, because the license by their own "bragging" words, is MIT. It is not the problem of end-users to figure out how to financially sustain a company that chose to go the open-source route for its many benefits, rapid publicity and rapid gain in users etc. It's true many companies went open-source just for those benefits, they knew they'd likely fail to gain traction if they didn't adopt an open-source license. Many times these companies "do" later switch to a different license once they have a good sized user-base locked in so to speak. Donations are one way, but companies can also allow users to "fund" features that they want, ie bounties etc. Other options are to have "big" corporate companies that use your products pay you for special customizations and special commercial licenses, since they require special care and support. Especially for government and military and many other companies that must use the product in very secure environments etc. So there are tons of ways for a company to make money with open source products, whether they be GPL or MIT or other. But as I said over and over, the MIT license gives all of us end-users certain rights, which can "not" be taken away by the developers by any other "Terms", otherwise you would be "violating" the MIT license. If there is anything I have said that you claim is "false", please "quote" what I said wrong. So, to reiterate my previous bottom-line summary, the developers can do whatever they want with the MIT code and in the MIT code, but they can "not add" any legal "Terms" to the Community Edition, that contradict the MIT license. (Enterprise isn't being discussed.) Likewise, the end users can't dictate to the developers what changes to make to the code etc, they are free to "try" to force registration in a legally "un-enforceable" way, by making it increasingly "annoying" to remove the registration code from the code-base. But as I said before, once the developers make things too annoying, someone will create a viable competitive fork without registration etc. My main point was that as long as the license is MIT, rocketchat cannot (legally) "enforce" any sort of registration, we can "remove" it. Feel free to test what I've said, with the FSF, EFF, SFC or others, I am confident it is correct. Hopefully it will be of some help to others. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Would be funny if Rocket.Chat completely switches to a proprietary model in the future. This "register to cloud else I won't work" thing is probably an early warning sign. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Yes, you're right this is a real possibility, since if they really want to (legally) force registration etc, they can't unless they change license. But the moment they do that, anyone can take the last version of it that was MIT, change the name and fork it as a new project. It's difficult for them to change license when they brag about the license being MIT. So hopefully they'll stay true to their original intent. Personally, I'm still trying to decide between Zulip or Rocket.Chat, I'm waiting for Zulip's new version with revamped user interface. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I'm not sure that many are reading, but anyway....
No, I did not mean that. Stop putting words in my mouth. You are the one using the terms legal and illegal - not me - apart from a reference to the word 'consideraton' which is a legal term. Illegal means 'prohibited by law'. Registration would come under under civil contract terms, which can be enforced via civil legal action, but 'illegal' is irrelevant and has zero place in this discussion. Refrain from using it. Technically they could sue you in a civil court for not registering, UNLESS you fork the code under MIT and remove the registration code. I have tried to explain some basic facts here but you don't want to accept them and you are trying to twist words to fit your agenda rather than accept the simple facts in front of you. You may not like or agree with how Rocket.Chat do business but that doesn't change facts. Try this. Imagine that Rocket.Chat was a binary blob (nope, not 'libre' but then Rocket never said they were). They release that binary, and to use it you have to register with them to enable it (and note - to enable it, NOT to have continuous connections so it can be air gapped). You still don't have to PAY for the CE or Starter editions. Just register. Call the registration whatever adjective you want. But it won't work without it. Now, imagine they also release - note this very important word - the source code under MIT licence. All perfectly legit. They can do that too. You can either choose to use the 'binary' with their conditions, or if you don't want to register you can copy/fork the - released - code under MIT, and remove the bits that offend you, and do whatever you want. Effectively - whether you agree with it/like it or not - that is the model that Rocket are offering you. If you want the code as is, be that docker, snap or directly built from the github repo then you will have to register to use it. If you don't want to register then take the code via the MIT licence, remove the bits you don't like and knock yourself out. It really is that simple. Rocket.Chat are perfectly entitled to do whatever they want with their code. If YOU use the code "as is" and don't register then you are breaking the terms of use with Rocket.Chat and 'technically' could be sued. The only way for you to legitimately bypass that is to fork it under MIT terms and do your own thing. MIT does not tell Rocket.Chat what it can or cannot do with it's own code. It ONLY says what YOU can do with it.
The only 'right' you have is to take the code and do your own thing with it. That's it. No more, no less. The MIT licence does not preclude Rocket from inisisting on terms to use their code as is. "Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy In essence: I think you are imagining that:
Means they can't put registration in the code. That is entirely wrong. It means you can take their code and they will not restrict YOU in any way from doing whatever you want with it. Your one sentence here is the where you incorrectly conflate things:
Rocket.Chat are perfectly entitled to inisist/enforce registration if you use the code "AS IS". That's their terms. So yes, they can.
Yup if you don't like the first statement, under MIT you can fork it and do that. See above about a 'binary blob' scenario.
MIT ONLY says you can take the code and modify it. Nothing else. Terms of business with Rocket.Chat are not the same as an MIT licence. THEIR code - on which they can enforce anything they want - is released with an MIT licence that covers what you can do with the code if you take a copy of it. Note that Enterprise is open source too - you can view the code - but is NOT under MIT but it is equally legitimate. Rocket insist that if you want to use EE you need a paid licnce.
See the statement from Gabriel above. There are absolutely no plans to do this.
Again, as above this is not correct. If they want to enforce registration they can. ie you have to register to use the software 'AS IS' or it will not work. They do not have to change the licence that enables you to take a copy of the code and do what you want with it.
Because exactly that - you can still take the code and fork it. But it doesn't not stop them asking you to register AS IS.
Yeah I hope so too. They are an extremely decent hard working bunch of people and it is a pleasure to work alongside them helping contribute something back to open source. And as I said above, there are absolutely no plans to change the MIT licence. You may not like Rocket insisting on registration, but that is not the same as what they are entitled to do. It is open source, but that doesn't mean it is 'libre'. You do have choices. Under MIT you can fork it and do your own thing. You can use something else.
Good luck with your choice though.
From reading your github history you seem to be complaining about similar issues on various different projects, and ironically seem to get similar answers too. The joys of public discussion :-) You seemed to have used, or be using, several different messaging apps and aren't really happy with any of them. Quite happy to read any of your publicly written material if you provide references but there really doesn't appear to be anything else obvious written by you. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reetp, it's hard to understand you, because you claim to be disagreeing with me even while you actually say the same exact thing I have said. I say that Rocket.Chat can do whatever they want with the MIT code, and users can do whatever they want with the "MIT source code" they download (edit it to remove registration etc), then you claim that I am wrong etc, and yet you say basically the SAME exact thing. What gives? I said that I indeed had in mind some "legal" footing when I use the word "enforce" or "enforcing" etc, and that it seemed to me that you did not use the term "enforce" in the same way, and I said that led to some confusion, since our "context" of "enforce" was different. Then you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, saying you never meant 'legal or illegal'. Why complain when that's exactly what I pointed out? Please stop imagining what I think, and actually read what I wrote. How can you say:
When did I EVER say/imply that? I never did, in fact, several times I said the exact OPPOSITE, I said that Rocket chat is free to put whatever they want in the code and users can't do anything to stop them, I said they can even make it "increasingly annoying" to edit/remove the source code with the registration, but that they can't legally prevent users from editing out the registration code, and they cannot add "extra terms" to the "MIT license" that would prevent users from editing the source code and removing any registration etc from the source code. So it seems you are the one who is putting words in my mouth, since I never said developers can't put registration etc into the source code. I said over and over that RocketChat developers are free to do whatever they want with the code. But my point is so can "users", they/us can do whatever we want with the "MIT" code also. And that means that if registration is "coded" into the "source code", I said that we can EDIT the Source Code that we download and install, so that we "remove the registration" from that MIT SOURCE CODE. We can legally remove it. Sometimes you simply repeat same exact thing I had also said. When we both say same thing, how can you say I'm wrong and you're right? (All of this discussion has been about MIT licensed SOURCE CODE. We did not talk about docker or 'binaries', I do not "edit binaries". I don't even use docker. I don't know what "license" that Rocket.Chat distributes supposed "binaries" as. I never discussed editing any binaries etc.) So anyway, back to "SOURCE CODE" as we have been talking until now, the source code license is MIT. I said we can download the source code and EDIT it and remove anything we want. Yet you seem to somehow both agree with me and disagree with me at the same time? You said:
All of this time, we have been talking about the "UNLESS" portion of your statement, I was saying that anyone can download the MIT source code and legally EDIT/cut/remove any registration code and Rocket.Chat developers cannot prevent that "unless they ditch the MIT" license. How can you say that I said something wrong, but then you yourself say the same thing I have always said? Again, I stand by my previous posts and challenge you to point out and quote exactly what I said about MIT licensing that you claim is wrong. All the points I have made would readily be confirmed as factual by the EFF, FSF, SFC or any lawyer in the industry. Feel free to check with any. I've done my best to clear up any confusion for the benefit of others, so that all are aware of their rights under the MIT License, to download and edit any such MIT licensed source code as they see fit, whether that means adding features or simply removing any registration code etc. I will end with the same comment and sentiment from my previous post: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
You said this:
Again, this is totally incorrect. They CAN add forced registration under their own terms of use. Nothing to do with an open source licence. If you choose to take a copy of the code then under the terms of the MIT licence that then apply you can remove it. ItsQuadras appears to understand this.
No. Again you are totally wrong. You keep confusing "Contract terms" with "Open Source Licence". There are shifting terms of use with Rocket.Chat themselves. But if you want to fork/clone/copy the source code you can then do what you want.
Contradicting yourself as per above. You absolutely do if they so choose. MIT has nothing to do with that part. For MIT to apply you HAVE to take a COPY of the code and modify it to suit.
Again, you are absolutely wrong on this. They CAN add registration code and force you to register if you want to use the code 'as is' - no matter how you deploy it. They CAN still release the source code under MIT. These two things can both be true. Microsoft could sell you Office AND release the source code under MIT. The only way you could take out subscription services, ads etc would be to clone the source and remove it.
I added that as an 'example' to try and help you understand, though I am not sure you want too. It doesn't matter how you read it. If you take the code and use it 'as is' be that docker, binary, clone and build, or whatever you like then they you will need to register to use it. If you don't want that then take a copy of the source code and modify it under MIT.
Actually, no I didn't use this word until considerably later in the conversation (check by searching for unless). You have been complaining that it isn't right, or permissible that they add registration code, and if they have added it then they would have to change the MIT licence. Again, this is factually incorrect. I said:
That is still true. Registration is a Contract Term of use. Not an "Open Source Licence".
We'll have to agree to disagree on that. So to recap the facts for clarity and trying to keep it as simple as possible.
There is no further discussion to be had about it. You may not like these facts. You may not agree with them. But that does not make them wrong.
Still waiting on that...... Did some digging and you have only made a number of posts on github issues via your somewhat underutilised github account. So I'll be delighted to read some of your lengthy articles on open source. Just drop a few links here. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
To conclude, if I understood correctly:
For my use case, Rocket.Chat is not (yet?) able to work how I would like it to. This is solely my opinion. I won't be engaging in this debate any further and will be exploring other options. Thanks for the replies (@)reetp and (@)jittygritty. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Essentially exactly this. Their terms are not what you may want, but they are entitled to do that. If you don't like it, take the code under the MIT licence and remove anything that offends you. That does not apply to anything in the EE directory.
Yup they can add anything they want to their code but see above. See also say Proxmox who do similar with their pop-up on login. Pretty hard to find an open source application that doesn't do this in one way or another - there are extremely few genuinely 'libre' source projects about - usually startups or personal ones. Most well established projects have something but it might always be obvious.
Not quite - you can air gap as discussed above. The online dependence essentially comes from say push notifications, apps etc. But it will work without.
If this is regarding air-gap you need to speak to me - I have spoken to the devs who are looking at this issue. If you want to set this up quickly we can assist with this but as it will require some private details you need to talk to me on open. We can't help otherwise, so this is in your hands.
If you need help any time then please ask. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Reetp, as I said in my previous post, I'm not sure who your arguments are against, you contradict yourself and then say same thing I've said. Again, I stand by what I said to you in my previous posts and in my last post from which you quoted my last sentence from this paragraph: > My point is this, obviously I do not see how a developer can possibly "ENFORCE" some form of registration or anything, IF the license is MIT license and we are free to REMOVE any registration. You can say they can ANNOY us with registrations junk left in code, but you can "not" use the word "Enforce" because they have no way to "enforce" their desire, no way to "force" us, because MIT lets us remove any registration they put in there or any other nag screen or anything else we don't like. If they do want a license that allows them to "force" and "enforce" a registration so that we're not allowed to legally remove it, then as I said before, they would have to ditch MIT. --jittygitty You claimed that what I said above was totally incorrect, you said:
Let me reiterate for everyone, what I said was not incorrect at all. IF Rocket.Chat wants to "force" and "enforce" a registration so that we're not allowed to LEGALLY REMOVE it, then as I said all the time, they WOULD have to DITCH the MIT. Otherwise, they can NOT prevent anyone from downloading the MIT source code and LEGALLY REMOVING any 'Registration' in the code. Please stop confusing others that this isn't the case. What's confusing is why you would contradict me in one paragraph but then say absolutely the SAME thing as me in another, like I quote you:
That's exactly the SAME thing I've said over and over, yet you kept saying I'm "wrong". You're arguing with imaginary person in your mind? Although I don't 'like' that we have to go through hassle/annoyance of touching/editing the source code to remove registration, I ALWAYS said that Rocket.Chat has every right to do whatever they want with the code and put whatever they want in it, but that we the users are ALSO free to do whatever we want with the MIT source code and REMOVE from it anything we don't like, whether 'Registration' or anything else. So, as I said in my previous post, you are really confusing people by claiming I'm wrong, but then in places saying EXACT same thing I've said. What I've said stands true, Rocket.Chat will have to ditch the MIT license which they brag about: https://www.rocket.chat/platform/open-source IF they will ever want to "LEGALLY" force people to keep the registration and make it "ILLEGAL" for people to simply REMOVE the Registration parts from the "source code", they have no way to prevent users from legally editing the source code and using their modified version without any registration etc, UNLESS they ditch the MIT license. If they ditch the MIT, they CAN change the License to one that would permit the developers to Legally enforce the registration on us and make it "Illegal" for anyone to edit the code and remove registration etc. Yet from what I've heard so far, the Rocket.Chat developers have no plan to change the MIT license that is proudly advertised on the site. So I'm happy enough with that, as long as the developers keep the MIT so that we can Legally REMOVE anything in the code we don't want, like 'Registration' or anything else, I'm ok with it. Until now, to their credit they have made it even relatively EASY to REMOVE 'Registration', they have even DOCUMENTED themselves (rocketchat devs) how to remove registration, just not so prominently, you have to 'dig' a little bit etc. As I've said before, in the future they could make it more annoying to remove if they wanted to, hopefully they won't, since if they did, I think it would create a "viable" and "competitive" Public fork of Rocket.Chat, which is probably something they would rather want to try and avoid. Obviously, you've either misread or misunderstood my posts. In reality, it seems like you agree with me. I propose that we end this discussion. For the 3rd time and hopefully last in thread, I'll end with the same comment and sentiment from my previous posts: |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
I'll ignore "legal/illegal" per my previous comments. Those terms are well documented and irrelevant here. A big distinction between civil & criminal liability. > I ALWAYS said that Rocket.Chat has every right to do whatever they want with the code and put whatever they want in it, but that we the users are ALSO free to do whatever we want with the MIT source code and REMOVE from it anything we don't like, whether 'Registration' or anything else Well you haven't quite as I have pointed out, but we'll ignore that. Yup. They can add whatever they want. They can ask everyone to pay if they want. They already do - more than 25 users requires a subscription - which you conveniently ignore. They could force you to register to download and run via say via docker or snaps. That's a condition of use for software via them. It would be enforceable in a civil court (nothing to do with illegal) Equally you can indeed clone the source and remove the offending code via MIT, bar EE code.
Nope. Completely wrong. That licence only affects source code you copy/clone. Nothing else. As above, they can charge, and add whatever terms they like to use the software as is eg docker, snap etc, and still release the source code under MIT. As I previously said, Microsoft could charge for a copy of Office AND open source it. Two things can be true. This is your misunderstanding which you fail to acknowledge, and I don't want other users to be confused by these contradictions. In the meantime I'm still waiting for the links to those long posts on open source you bragged about which I still haven't seen. Just pop them here for me to read. And do let us know which software you pick (from reading I guess it won't be simplex chat). Interesting to see how your choice stacks up. Thanks. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
If anyone with nothing better to do has read all this thread, they're likely rolling on the floor laughing at our discussion, which I'd summarize: "Rocket.Chat is Open-Source MIT!" --jittygitty "OK let me clarify: Rocket.Chat is Licensed under the MIT License, also spelled MiT or mit or MIT, which allows you to legally Edit/Modify the Source Code of the MIT/MiT licensed CE (community-edition) Rocket.Chat code. So "legally" you're free to do anything you want to the MIT Source Code. ("legally" is taken to mean broadly that you need NOT worry about having broken any Civil Law or Common Law or Criminal law, if you MODIFY the MIT Source Code to remove Registration or anything else you don't like.)" --jittygitty (End of my "summary" of our discussion.) So now for the last time, to clarify for anyone out there that reetp may have confused or scared with "Civil legal action", confusing them that if they removed the registration code, they may have breached some "Civil contract" that supposedly Rocket.Chat devs can enforce "via civil legal action", that is "NOT TRUE" if you are Modifying/Editing the "MIT LICENSED" CE (community-edition) to REMOVE the Registration from the MIT SOURCE CODE, or to remove anything you don't like in the MIT source code. Feel free to edit/remove "anything" from the MIT Code. Again, when I've used terms legally/illegally or legal/illegal, I am "INCLUSIVE" of what reetp calls possible "CIVIL LEGAL ACTION" in civil court. So, to reiterate, ALL our discussion has been about the CE community-edition Rocket.Chat which is "MIT Licensed", so here are the facts on it:
Rocket.Chat could even "charge" money to grant access to the "MIT source" code, as I've mentioned before that some projects have done at times. ( see section I wrote about Wordpress/GPL at https://github.com/orgs/RocketChat/discussions/32797#discussioncomment-10078183 ) Reetp, you complain of my use of Legal/illegal and say you'll "ignore" such terms, but then "you" talk of enforcing via "CIVIL LEGAL ACTION". The "Legal" part matters because obviously anyone can edit/modify even any proprietary/closed-source code that got leaked that they got a hold of. Nobody can stop you from modifying any source code you have in your possession; the question is if any "legal action" can stop you. Of course, the EE enterprise version license is totally different and with that version you may very well be legally prevented from removing the registration and abide by whatever other "terms of use" that they want to add to that version. Also, people should take note that we have been talking about MIT source code, but if a company takes some MIT licensed code and "compiles" the code and "builds" it with software compilers so that the MIT "source code" then becomes a BINARY where you can no longer "see/edit/modify" the actual MIT "Source Code", then those BINARY files CAN indeed be licensed to you under a DIFFERENT LICENSE than the MIT License. Of course, you don't have to use any "BINARY" version (google binary verses source code for more details), you can go to Github, "download the Source Code" and use that. All of this discussion has been about MIT licensed SOURCE CODE. We did NOT talk about docker or 'binaries', I do not "edit binaries". I don't even use docker. Everything we've discussed has been about the MIT licensed "Source Code" and what we can or can't do to the "MIT CODE". Reetp, let's let this thread rest in peace, you obviously have no real disagreement with 'real me', you said the same thing I've said. You said:
So as before, let me tell you again, we have been talking about that "UNLESS" part of your statement all this time! Therefore, you have no disagreement with 'real me', stop arguing with some "imaginary" version of me. Were "you" talking about something other than "editing" the MIT SOURCE CODE to remove the registration? I surely wasn't talking about anything else other than "Editing" the MIT "SOURCE CODE" etc. As soon as someone has downloaded the MIT source code and EDITED that MIT source code to "remove" the Registration code, they have technically "forked" the MIT code and are free to use that custom "modified code". There's no 'official' fork/dance required, just Edit the Code! I had already clarified to you 5-days ago in https://github.com/orgs/RocketChat/discussions/32797#discussioncomment-10091262 that ALL of this discussion has been about the "UNLESS" part of your statement both here and previously. I quote again what I said in my July 18 post:
So again, reetp, you can't complain of my use of Legal while using the word Legal yourself or say the same thing that I've said over and over about editing and using MIT Source Code we modified, and yet claim that I was "wrong", while you go ahead and say the 'same' thing I said. Again, I think you obviously misread or misunderstood a lot of my previous posts. That's why I said please stick to what I say, don't "imagine". So, let's agree to disagree that we both agree ; ) For if we go on like this, "disagreeing about nothing", someone may seriously risk dying of a heart-attack while rolling on the floor laughing! :) |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
|
Sigh
This statement is incorrect. Please understand because you entirely miss the point here, again and again. The only code that has an MIT licence is the source code you clone from github at the point you clone it and not before. Prior to you cloning it, it is not MIT licensed and is operated under their terms and conditions. They can add anything they like. At the point you clone it the MIT license then applies and you are free to remove anything you do not like. So a snap or docker install or the any other easy deployment method is NOT MIT. The only code that is MIT is the source code that you clone or copy or fork. It is really simple. Either deploy and accept their terms, or clone and do your own thing under MIT. That is your one and only choice.
Absolutely complete and utterly incorrect.
Simple as that. Remember the title of this thread:
Unfortunately what you are railing against is you want to run Rocket.Chat via Docker, Snap or however you want to deploy, it but not want to register. If you run it 'as is' it is NOT MIT licensed. It ONLY has a MIT licence if you copy the code, remove code bits you don't like, and rebuild it (because you cannot actually 'run' the source code, you have to build/compile and run) You cannot have your cake and eat it, as I have previously mentioned. And as I have said several times I suspect either you do not really understand what you are saying, or that you are trolling Rocket.Chat and trying to make them 'look bad' - possibly to use elsewhere. Your 'almost' anonymous account is typical of that, as are some of your comments on other similar issues elsewhere. So. As I have asked several times and you have so far completely ignored:
Let's all see those long expert posts, and see who you really are (you can find more about me all over the place very easily - I don't try and hide) We have no desire to close this thread as you will undoubtedly try and weaponize it against Rocket.Chat - "they are gagging me" - but you are pushing the boundaries of acceptability, and it is taking way too much time to try and make sure we respond accurately. However, we cannot let you continually make incorrect or false statements - as you say it is public and it needs to be accurate, and your statements are not. Thank you. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Description:
I just did a fresh "SELF-HOSTED" install of this rocket-chat. But i found it sketchy when it started asking for organization details, like even size, how many people etc and other info, all 'required' with no option to leave blank. Then when you go to next page it got even WORSE, you're greeted with some info as if you just signed up for some CLOUD SERVICE when here you were trying to AVOID all that and went through all the hassle to install everything SELF-HOSTED.
So please tell us, HOW do we get rid of that page to agree with YOUR PRIVACY policy and to REGISTER WORKSPACE with your CLOUD? I don't want to agree to anyone's privacy policy, I don't want to share data, and I don't want to register with your cloud at all. I just want to run rocket-chat off my server, that's it. thanks
Steps to reproduce:
Do a fresh install of Rocket-Chat, then start it on http://yourIP:3000
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions