Mattermost restricted access to old messages after 10000 limit is reached

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Licensing, “open core”, and confusion

  • Thread highlights that Mattermost’s situation is messy:
    • Prebuilt binaries advertised as MIT-licensed.
    • Source code under AGPL, with some admin tools under Apache 2.0.
    • Additional “we won’t enforce copyleft if…” language that several people find legally unclear or poorly drafted.
  • Some argue Mattermost is not truly open source but “open core” SaaS with CLA-based control, enabling feature removal and relicensing.
  • There’s extended debate about MIT vs GPL/AGPL, copyleft vs permissive licenses, and what end‑users are actually entitled to.

10k message limit as rug-pull / “ransomware with extra steps”

  • The new 10,000‑message history cap on self‑hosted instances is widely seen as:
    • A stealthy, unannounced rug‑pull on existing users.
    • Ethically worse than Slack because it affects previously accessible history on servers you run yourself.
  • Some speculate the limit may have performance roots; others note it’s removed for paying users and mirrors Slack’s free limit, suggesting a pure upsell tactic.

Forking, patching, and legality

  • Multiple comments say nothing prevents forking or removing limits, and share small patches to disable post‑history checks or adjust limits.
  • Others push back: maintaining a serious fork (security fixes, releases, infra) is non‑trivial and “just fork it” is unrealistic for most orgs.
  • There’s brief discussion about whether binary patching is “legal”; consensus is it’s allowed under MIT, with the real risk being whether a company tries to cause trouble anyway.

Open source sustainability and “enshittification”

  • Strong sentiment that this is a classic VC‑driven “OS rug pull”: use FOSS branding to build adoption and contributions, then lock features/limits to drive revenue.
  • Some argue open source has never had a sustainable funding model beyond large foundations and corporate sponsorship; others criticize user entitlement to free support vs companies’ bait‑and‑switch tactics.

Editions, repos, and communication

  • Confusion over Team vs Enterprise editions and which limits apply where; Ubuntu repo apparently ships Enterprise as “Free edition,” adding to mistrust.
  • Several people emphasize that the lack of clear, proactive communication about the change is as damaging as the limit itself.

Alternatives and migration

  • Many recommend moving to other tools: Zulip, Matrix/Element, XMPP, IRC, Rocket.Chat, or even Discord.
  • Some share past migrations away from Mattermost after earlier feature removals (e.g., calls, SSO/LDAP tiers).

Zulip’s model vs Mattermost

  • Zulip gets generally positive mentions as a Slack‑style replacement: no history/user limits for self‑hosted, most features available, and paid plans mainly for support and hosted push notifications.
  • There is debate over whether Zulip’s paid mobile push (beyond 10 users) is reasonable infrastructure cost or “rent‑seeking”; some note you can self‑host your own push infra if you’re willing to do the work.

Positioning and ethics (enterprise/defense)

  • Several commenters note Mattermost’s current marketing targets militaries, governments, and large enterprises, reading this as a shift away from community priorities.
  • Some are uncomfortable with its apparent defense‑contractor orientation and combine that with the licensing/limit changes as reasons to leave the platform.