14 ms·

Dear Matt Mullenweg: An Open Letter from Wix.com’s CEO Avishai Abrahami

210 points by yoava 10y ago

gargarplex 10y ago
I think Wix is a superior product for many businesses, but this post did not address the question of GPL violation.
harperlee 10y ago
I think this is a golden example of how to reply to an accusation: lay down the facts, don't get down to the mud, but clearly expose the other side's errors - with class!
- return0 10y ago
  Sounded a bit snarky, and avoids the issue really: if wix plays equally they should do what wordpress does and give their code for free. a CEO should know that. The correct reply would be to apologize and build their own editor.
  - markdown 10y ago
    > The correct reply would be to apologize and build their own editor. After first releasing the entire application that used some GPL code.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Why not just stop infringing? That is also an option. Just stop using the GPL code.
      - brazzledazzle 10y ago
        The license doesn't reflect that as an option right? Yeah you might be liable for damages but if you could just create a product as a thin wrapper around GPL as a shortcut to get to market faster and dump it later when you get caught it would almost make the entire point of the GPL moot.
        stale2002 10y ago
        I mean, that's not how copyright law works. Generally if you are infringing on copywrite, you just have to STOP infringing and you are good. You can't embed gotcha clauses that say "if you break this copywrite, you have to pay me a billion dollars".
        mixedCase 10y ago
        Absolutely wrong. If you pirate a movie but then stopped distributing it and deleted it, you're not off the hook.
      - markdown 10y ago
        Assume they have sold me their software. I am using this app that contains GPL licensed code. AFAIK, they can't take back this software I've bought from them, and due to the GPL, they are obliged to provide the source code for the entire app to me if I want it. Whether they stop infringing on any further sales of the software is of no consequence to me and to the software they already sold me. IANAL.
- WWKong 10y ago
  And maybe just follow the licensing terms?
- mwfunk 10y ago
  They're still not complying with the GPL though? It's completely cut and dried, it's not an argument where people can have differing opinions with varying degrees of validity. The GPL is a very well-known and widely understood license.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    But if you stop infringing the GPL, the terms of the GPL no longer apply, so you cannot be forced to obey it's terms. You can however be sued for damages due to the historic copyright infringement.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    But if you stop infringing the GPL, the terms of the GPL no longer apply, so you cannot be forced to obey it's terms. You can however be sued for damages due to the historic copyright infringement.
  - nicky0 10y ago
    But if you stop infringing the GPL, the terms of the GPL no longer apply, so you cannot be forced to obey it's terms. You can however be sued for damages due to the historic copyright infringement.
- Lazare 10y ago
  > lay down the facts, don't get down to the mud, but clearly expose the other side's errors - with class! That is, indeed, a good way to respond to an accusation. It is not, in any sense, what Wix did. The response was free of facts, snarky, and didn't even address the claims the other side made, much less expose any errors. What Wix needed to do was say "oh hey, good catch, we'll be compliant soon" or "thanks but we think we're compliant". They did neither.
  - harperlee 10y ago
    Ok, fair point. I might have been light on the facts of the case. But (the following is not you specifically :) but I can't just edit my original post) I got several negatives... They are not meant to show disagreement, if I'm not mistaken. Please remember to comment when you down vote if you see my comment as against the policies - otherwise there is no way to improve HN comments.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
weinzierl 10y ago
This response still doesn't address the core issue: The Wix mobile App uses GPL code but the rest of the source code of the app has not been made public so far as required by the GPL. At least they missed to add a written offer to distribute the source code. If they will publish the source if someone requests it has to be seen. When it comes to attribution it gets more difficult. As far as I understand the code from Wordpress is under plain vanilla GPL 2 without any supplements [1], so attribution is not required. [1] https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/blob/develop/LICENSE https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/blo... EDIT: If anything, this whole controversy shows one thing: Open source licenses (particularly the GPL) are still not widely understood. (I assume ignorance on WIX's side).
- firasd 10y ago
  Exactly. Regarding "everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source", unfortunately the GPL doesn't let you redistribute code after modifying it while only releasing the modifications. I guess "we will release the app you saw as well" may mean that they'd open source the whole app and thus be compliant, but it's unclear. Also the fact that the company was once also known as "Wixpress" is easy to verify [1], not sure why he would contest that. [1] http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193125-13-387285/1576789/filing.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193...
- mbesto 10y ago
  From the lead developer: https://medium.com/@talkol/how-i-found-myself-accused-of-stealing-code-from-wordpress-a7350da9f9f2#.wym6nvgmv https://medium.com/@talkol/how-i-found-myself-accused-of-ste... > I know some developers are scared of using GPL, apparently for a pretty good reason. The WordPress GPL Rich Text component in question, is actually a wrapper around another Rich Text component named ZSSRichTextEditor which is licensed MIT. In retrospect it would have been easier to use it directly. https://github.com/nnhubbard/ZSSRichTextEditor https://github.com/nnhubbard/ZSSRichTextEditor https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS So, Wix built a wrapper for a GPL piece of code, which was just a wrapper for a MIT piece of code. According to this tweet[0], the only thing Wix needs to do is to assign a GPL license to their code...but alas IANAL. [0] - https://twitter.com/nitrogen/status/792486850845773824 https://twitter.com/nitrogen/status/792486850845773824 EDIT - From the OP's blog: > When you embed and use GPL code, you have to release the entire thing as GPL. (That’s why it’s called a viral license.) So they need to release not just their changes to the editor, but the entire app that was distributed.
gk1 10y ago
The post being referenced: https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/ https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/
- gnicholas 10y ago
  Thx for posting. Seeing that this wasn't linked in the "Dear Matt" letter made me wonder if it was left off accidentally or on purpose. IMO, it looks like the response didn't really address the core complaint of the original letter. Not conclusive, but makes it seem less like an accident.
  - unreal37 10y ago
    Neither the CEO or the developer linked to the original. That's definitely on purpose.
- mk3 10y ago
  For me I see Matt as an dog trying to mark what is his and slapping GPL license on top of everything. If so I would like to see some of the woocommerce plugins released publicly as it falls under GPL
  - mpcod 10y ago
    WC plugins are 100% GPL. If you take a delivery of a plugin, you get all of the source code, and have all of the freedoms to use / modify etc. as WP itself.
    - ajsalminen 10y ago
      The whole situation with large amounts of "premium" plugins that apparently are GPL for the most part (or at least should be) but don't like to talk about it, include all kinds of license activation features and are split into a separate "free" version with reduced feature set and advertisements splattered all over is a little strange. It's also very off putting when you're used to the typical way open source is developed and distributed.
detaro 10y ago
> If you need source code that we have, and we have not yet released, then, most likely we will be happy to share, you only need to ask. Well, the initial blog post makes clear what source code Automattic thinks they (and everybody) needs...
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
pavlov 10y ago
"Yes, we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the application (that is the concept of open source right?), and everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source ..." That is not the concept of the GPL though. They need to release the source for the entire derived work, not just that one component. It's not Wix's choice -- it's required by the license, and the act of incorporating code under that license makes them bound by it. For a letter written by a CEO, this one seems strangely oblivious to the real issues. Did he run it through the legal department at all? (Presumably not, since it's the weekend.) Abrahami writes: "If you believe that we need to give you credit" -- but that's not the issue at hand. It gives the impression that he doesn't understand the differences between open source licenses, and that can be a serious liability for a company that builds so heavily on other people's code. [Edit] I actually wish the GPL were finally tested in court, because that would resolve a long-standing question around its enforceability. The CEO of Wix admitted that the derived work in this case contains "more than 3 million lines of code"... The copyright owner of the GPL'd module could sue them to have all that released under the GPL, and (assuming Wix wouldn't comply) then we would finally know if the license holds up in court or not.
- tzs 10y ago
  > The CEO of Wix admitted that the derived work in this case contains "more than 3 million lines of code"... The copyright owner of the GPL'd module could sue them to have all that released under the GPL, and (assuming Wix wouldn't comply) then we would finally know if the license holds up in court or not. The copyright owner would win, but all they would likely get out of the court is an injunction stopping Wix from distributing the infringing product and monetary damages. They would probably not be able to force Wix to release source code. If the GPL code is just a wrapper around MIT licensed code, as has been claimed, Wix should be able to quickly change their code to use that MIT code directly instead of using WordPress' GPL wrapper.
  - pavlov 10y ago
    That would still be a major victory for the GPL. To my knowledge it has never been tested in court in the USA. Everyone knows that the GPL is being commonly violated by companies that just don't care and developers who don't understand it. Any US legal precedent around GPL would be welcome.
pulse7 10y ago
WordPress has GPL license and not LGPL! This means that if Wix uses/links ANY part of WordPress, the whole Wix should be under GPL license and source code must be made public because Wix is distributed and not used internally only (GPLv2, http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/158789/can-i-link-to-a-gpl-library-from-a-closed-source-application http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/15878...)
- wav-part 10y ago
  How about linking to your own wrapper library which would be custom licensed in addition to GPL ? closed_binary (closed) --> libW (GPL+custom) --> Wordpress (GPL)
  - TD-Linux 10y ago
    libW in this case would pretty clearly be a derived work in this case, so would also need to carry the GPL license.
    - wav-part 10y ago
      True but libW also has custom licence relieving closed_binary from make-it-gpl requirement. Unless GPL forbids libW to be anything but GPL'd.
      - fourthark 10y ago
        It does.
      - pluma 10y ago
        That's why it's called a "viral" license. If your code directly links GPL code, your code is now GPL code too. This is different from the non-viral LGPL (and MIT/BSD/whatever) which permits linking without "infecting" the linking code. There's a handy workaround that is 1) never actually distributing the linking code or 2) putting the code behind a network interface and talking to that instead of linking to the code itself. Both of these mean you're not "distributing" the infected code, so the requirement to publish the source code is not triggered. The second workaround is addressed by the Affero GPL which also requires source code to be published as an interface rather than as a distributed binary.
potatosareok 10y ago
What the hell is this these are companies that make millions of dollars a year arguing on the weekend with public blog posts. This is what lawyers are for. I automatically assume if you try to argue online you're in the wrong and are counting on public opinion to save you.
- eadz 10y ago
  Not even lawyers, just raise it as an issue and try to work something out before yelling "Stealing Code" all over the internet. There are so many packages, libraries & dependencies out there that missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose.
  - pluma 10y ago
    > missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose This doesn't sound like the typical "junior dev who doesn't understand licenses added a GPL dependency" situation. Especially considering Wix's reply. If you're arguing that nobody at Wix understands the implication of software licensing you're arguing all of their senior developers are unfit to hold senior positions. A basic understanding of software licenses (i.e. at least Unlicense/CC0 vs MIT/BSD/Apache2 vs LGPL vs GPL/AGPL) is one of the first things I expect every junior developer to learn when working on a company product that involves third-party code. This is either a rookie mistake (in which case Wix should have owned up to it and fixed it), malice or ignorance. And I'm not sure ignorance would save them any more respect than malice.
- fourthark 10y ago
  Or, posting online before contacting each other directly? Incomprehensible to me.
blintz 10y ago
> "we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the application" Well, now you must release the source code of that whole application, immediately. There's no argument to be had, no "I did not even know we were fighting" - there's no fight, just legally binding requirements on what you release.
- lwf 10y ago
  The GPL doesn't force your hand; "you have to release your code" is never the case. You can always just stop infringing :) (IANAL, this is not legal advice)
  - 0x0 10y ago
    Isn't the alternative admitting you have committed copyright infringement?
    - tptacek 10y ago
      Yes, but that only entitles you to monetary damages, which may be small in this case.
      - 0x0 10y ago
        Why do you think the monetary damages are small? Going head-to-head against a company that is apparently valued over $1billion by stealing their source code sounds expensive.
      - brazzledazzle 10y ago
        Depends on if it's determined to be "derivative" right?
      - dctoedt 10y ago
        Monetary damages can be in the amount of the infringer's profits arising from the infringement. [The following is copied and pasted from a Common Draft annotation:] Consider the case of Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 886 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1989) (Frank Music II): [1] + The MGM Grand Hotel had a floor show called Hallelujah Hollywood!, which included ‘tributes' to various MGM movies. + The floor show incorporated significant portions of the musical Kismet, which had been made into an MGM movie. + The court found that this went beyond MGM's ‘movie rights' and therefore infringed the copyright in the musical. + The resulting damage award included not just a portion of profits from the floor show itself, but 2% of the overall profits from the MGM Grand's hotel operations — including 2% of the casino profits — which, the court found, were indirectly attributable to the promotional value of the infringing floor show. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16903471126265449346 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=169034711262654...
alanh 10y ago
Not a good first impression, Wix: https://alanhogan.com/files/wix-blog-first-impression.png https://alanhogan.com/files/wix-blog-first-impression.png
prh8 10y ago
I think that was very well done by the Wix CEO. It doesn't matter that he doesn't seem to understand GPL. His job is not to put out a blog post saying yes, we're idiots, liable for everything. His job is to put out a good look for the company, and then deal with this behind closed doors. This is meant as a fluff piece, and he knows better than to provide any definitive statements on what Wix will do, that they could be held too. Again, positive spin, and handle the rest in private.
- return0 10y ago
  Judging by the response here, he didnt put forward a good look.
  - prh8 10y ago
    I don't think we are necessarily the specific target audience. If so, he probably would have done a better job with the technical details.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
zachruss92 10y ago
Yea, this is a question of GPL Licensing and Matt is right. WordPress and Automattic have both been huge proponents of open source and without GPL existing I would not be able to make a living (as well as the millions of software engineers in the world who use OSS every day). The GPL is pretty clear about using GPL software and creating derivative work (i.e. an iOS app that, in part, uses GPL Licensed code) then distributing it to others, that you have to also include the source code along with the GPL license. Wix should just open source the app and put an end to this - as it's obvious that they're violating the terms of the license.
- stale2002 10y ago
  Well, or they could just stop using the GPL code.
  - davexunit 10y ago
    They still need to comply with the GPL for the software they have released to date.
bdcravens 10y ago
> There are more than 3 million lines of code in the Wix application This always bugs me and feels disingenuous. Should I count all the modules/gems in my app? (A quick check of a Rails app found about 1.4mloc but about 25kloc is code I wrote - which should I count?)
llamataboot 10y ago
The weird snarky passive-aggressive tone of this is really off-putting to me. "Hey dude, we'e released some cool stuff, check it out, maybe your business can use it"
- cube00 10y ago
  "...that is the concept of open source right?"
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- bluedino 10y ago
  I think the weird tone or writing style is because the authors first language isn't English
jondubois 10y ago
Most people who are seriously involved in open source know that GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses. So, basically, if any company wants to incorporate a GPL product into their project for distribution, they would have to essentially make their entire project's source code public also under GPL - Which is a completely undesirable thing to do for any company. The bad part about GPL is that it applies to everyone except the licence owner. GPL is just the FSF's way of saying f* you to companies who didn't bother to read up on what GPL actually means. It doesn't actually fulfil its purpose as an open source license - It just puts all the leverage in the hands of the license owner. Hypothetically, if the GPL also applied to the creator of the GPL product THEN it would be fair - But that's not possible because the creator would never sue themselves for breaching their own GPL.
- EvanAnderson 10y ago
  Nobody forces anyone to modify and distribute GPL'd software. If you don't like the terms of the license don't agree to it. Clarification: If you don't agree with the GPL you also don't get to redistribute code licensed under its terms. Don't redistribute GPL'd code and somehow expect to not be bound by the license. If you don't like the GPL and don't agree w/ its terms that's fine, just don't redistribute GPL'd code then.
  - delinka 10y ago
    If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use code licensed under that license. You can't just download GPL'd code, disagree with the license, and continue using the code in a manner incompatible with that license.
    - EvanAnderson 10y ago
      I'll clarify: Implicit in my "don't agree to it" was "you don't get to distribute it". I'm not attempting to say that one can "disagree" with the GPL yet still distribute code that's licensed under its terms.
    - jessaustin 10y ago
jwebb99 10y ago
Wait. What's going here? I've been reading some of the HN comments in response to this story and it seems you guys are saying that ANY codebase built on WP must be visibly released to the public. So does that mean, millions of WP sites with custom mods must relase release their code in some capacity? If so, where? And how am I supposed to declare where the sourcecode can be found--a dedicated page on my site, a comment in my HTML? I'm really struggling to understand how the guys at Wix are the villains in this story. It seems every year Mullenweg issues a Fatwa in response to some imagined violation of WP's GPL licence. He's really becoming quite belligerent over this crusade of his. Seriously, do we all need to release our source code if we build stuff on WP? If not, why the hell is Wix getting so much shit?
- firasd 10y ago
  It's more about distribution. So if you make some changes and keep it on your server you don't have to show the code to everyone, but if you release a plugin for third parties to download, then everyone who gets the download should be able to read, modify and distribute the plugin code under the same license. In this case the app is distributed to phones.
  - ceejayoz 10y ago
    That gets a little iffy, though. If your custom plugin distributes CSS/JS/HTML to browsers, does that count?
    - delinka 10y ago
      If your custom plugin distributes its output, no. Generally speaking, the output of a GPL'd program is not also subject to the GPL (quines notwithstanding.)
      - ceejayoz 10y ago
        WordPress's JS (and I'd argue its CSS/HTML) is much more integral part of the code for the system than mere "output", IMO.
tlogan 10y ago
IANAL, but these guys are also not (but I think wix.com did consult them). The WordPress component in question is based MIT license which might not included in valid way as GPL and Wix.com is using that component. I assume Wix.com's layers told them that this component cannot be protected under GPL so they are ok to use them.
snorrah 10y ago
WOW DUDE Clearly a great opening line. If you write an open letter, try not sounding terrible in your letter.
athirnuaimi 10y ago
Given that this is from the CEO of a public company, it does not reflect well on WIX. CEOs set the tone for the rest of the company. Mr. Abrahami should have had the issue investigated and if what Wordpress says is true (and it looks like it it), apologize and take corrective action. That probably means removing the mobile app from the App Store while they rewrite parts of the app. Or they can release the source code. There really aren't other options. I've worked with and for several large software companies. They have all taken GPL licenses very seriously. Mistakes can occur but GPL is not something they trivialize.
JoshMnem 10y ago
It seems like there are misconceptions about the GPL in both Wix posts. It's interesting that Wix advertises "Start Your Own Stunning Blog" to customers: http://www.wix.com/start/blog http://www.wix.com/start/blog but they are using WordPress for their own company blog.
hellofunk 10y ago
The Wix CEO previously left a comment or two here in this thread but I see he has removed them. I think the heat is on, it is clear that he not only did not follow GPL but actually accidentally admitted to that in this own blog!
- boulos 10y ago
  Really? I don't see any deleted, dead or even flagged comments in this thread (I have showdead on).
  - hellofunk 10y ago
    I definitely saw one last night, and I've looked for it again here today and I do not see it.
benguild 10y ago
Does Avashai Abarhami know what an "open letter" is?
Kiro 10y ago
I hate GPL. I don't want to publish my crappy code and make a fool of myself. No-one would want to use it anyway. I would be extremely impressed if they could even understand anything with all the esoteric and ugly hacks it exist of.
jondot 10y ago
FYI: Wix has tooling for verifying their OSS policy https://github.com/wix/wix-oss-ci-police https://github.com/wix/wix-oss-ci-police
- pluma 10y ago
  In other words: don't use that tool because you shouldn't trust Wix with handling OSS licensing correctly?
Lazare 10y ago
The tone of the response really rubs me the wrong way. > Wow, dude I did not even know we were fighting. It's not a fight; it's a dispute over licensing. > you say we have been taking from the open source community without giving back, well, of course, that isn’t true. No, you were accused of not following a specific license on a specific piece of code. > Here is a list of 224 projects on our public GitHub page Open source is not a swap meet; you can't violate a license if you voluntarily release some other code to make up for it. > and we will release the app you saw as well. If that means "we were inadvertently not in compliance, but we are releasing the code and will be in compliance shortly", then that needed a tweet at most, not a rambling blog post about the fact you've got 224 projects on github. So I'm guessing this does not mean they're taking steps to become compliant? > Yes, we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the application (that is the concept of open source right?) Yes, along with following the actual terms of the actual license when you use an open source library. You weren't accused of not adhering to the spirit of open source; you were accused of not following the letter of a license (which, if true, means you aren't adhering to the spirit of open source either). > If you need source code that we have, and we have not yet released, then, most likely we will be happy to share, you only need to ask. That's...what they did. You need to comply with the licenses of the libraries you use, you were asked to do it. You will "most likely" be happy to do it? You were asked; you're replying to being asked, and your answer is that you don't have an answer, but the odds are good that you'll have one someday? What does this even mean? Considering the sheer mass of words, it's amazing that the word "license" and "GPL" don't occur even once. There's no attempt to address or discuss the actual accusation being made, just vague assertions that some stuff will be released someday, maybe, if you're asked, and hey how about a coffee. All this needed was a tweet: "Thanks for heads-up; will be compliant shortly." Or maybe: "On advice of lawyers, we believe we are in full compliance, thanks." Reminds me of an old lawyer joke: If the facts are against you, hammer the law. If the law is against you, hammer the facts. If both are against you, hammer the table." I'm going to mark this down as "table hammering", and I think it rather sugests that Wix, at least, thinks their position sucks.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- 10y ago
mk3 10y ago
People should realise that Matt also has for profit company Automatic and it's mostly defending his cash cow rather than spirit of open source. Also speaking about originaly MIT licensed editor code which suddenly becomes GPL: Taking someones work adding modifications on top and slapping different license on top wildly unethical. As it benefits only the person who slapped GPL on top. As I know if you use GPL licensed code you must have GPL license. At least in wordpress case: https://wordpress.org/about/license/ https://wordpress.org/about/license/. So author can not use the improvements Automatic engineers made while using his library for profit.
- ryan-allen 10y ago
  Very true. Automattic have heaps of closed source code to run their proprietary platform and they don't release that to the public, yet they demand it from others. Mullenweg has a history of "do as I say not as I do" in regards to GPL, and to my mind it's a bit of sour grapes on his part.
  - league 10y ago
    Distribution changes this. They do not distribute WordPress.com for download. They do distribute WordPress.org
    - mpcod 10y ago
      Automattic doesn't do anything with WordPress.org but contribute to it. WordPress.com uses a lot of WordPress.org code and other open source code (that they wrote and distribute), but I imagine there is a lot of (probably stupidly ugly) back end stuff they have not released that helps them run a service as huge as WordPress.com ... but they aren't distributing it so... if they did, I am sure they would do so under GPL.
beejiu 10y ago
It is always amusing for people to debate about 'open source' and how licenses work. They, as the CEO of Wix has, repeat the same misunderstandings time and time again. You don't need a lawyer. You don't need an opinion. Set aside 15 minutes of your day and actually read the license. It is not complicated.
tarboreus 10y ago
This is pure obfuscation. He doesn't even mention the GPL in this post. He's legally obligated to release the entire application, and is probably scrambling now to find an Apache or MIT-licensed alternative to the WordPress editor.
mpcod 10y ago
Matt hits on part of the issue clearly in his update on his post. "I will say we look to Wix, Weebly, and Squarespace as innovators in the space with products that reach many small businesses, and Wix especially should be commended for its success and growth as a public company." It is unfair to take the best parts of your competitors work and so freely use it while ignoring the overall scope of the license which permitted you to do so in the first place, pretending there isn't long established precedent. If Wix wasn't a successful competitor, nobody would know about their use of this code. Nobody would care. Personally - it is why I love the GPL. I removes code from the equation because everyone who takes distribution has the code. So for services and apps, defense comes through excellence in execution, not defense through proprietary code (since running something successful requires so much more than simply code). It's why companies like to defend their market positions through proprietary code. They are afraid (and know) someone else could do it better, so they protect their investment at least by making someone else have to do it over as a hurdle to entry. Anyone can take WordPress.org, make a WordPress.com-like free blog hosting company, and completely compete with Automattic. Many try to with their own stacks, and clearly are not doing as well as WordPress.com. That's telling, and why Matt is in the right. My opinion is that it is a complete sin to include the good work of your competitor in your proprietary code. It is very revealing about the greediness and capacity of Wix's management to pull something like this. Even if they try to come off as good guys. They are hiding something bad. Why? No company this dishonest should be trusted with anything. If I was with Wix, I would move to someone else on principle. So ... what else are they doing? What are they doing with your information they have about you then? And I will for sure highlight this behavior to people I know who use Wix. Their only course of action to fix this is to admit their error and to fully open source their code. If they decide to retreat and remove the GPL'd code, it is a greater admission of what they were trying to do in the first place behind closed doors, and were just "unlucky" enough to get caught. Shame on you Wix. Fix it. I have pity on you for falling victim to Wall Street's greed. You owe the internet more than that.

210 points by yoava 10y ago

I think Wix is a superior product for many businesses, but this post did not address the question of GPL violation.

I think this is a golden example of how to reply to an accusation: lay down the facts, don't get down to the mud, but clearly expose the other side's errors - with class!

return0 10y ago
Sounded a bit snarky, and avoids the issue really: if wix plays equally they should do what wordpress does and give their code for free. a CEO should know that. The correct reply would be to apologize and build their own editor.
- markdown 10y ago
  > The correct reply would be to apologize and build their own editor. After first releasing the entire application that used some GPL code.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Why not just stop infringing? That is also an option. Just stop using the GPL code.
    - brazzledazzle 10y ago
      The license doesn't reflect that as an option right? Yeah you might be liable for damages but if you could just create a product as a thin wrapper around GPL as a shortcut to get to market faster and dump it later when you get caught it would almost make the entire point of the GPL moot.
      - stale2002 10y ago
        I mean, that's not how copyright law works. Generally if you are infringing on copywrite, you just have to STOP infringing and you are good. You can't embed gotcha clauses that say "if you break this copywrite, you have to pay me a billion dollars".
        mixedCase 10y ago
        Absolutely wrong. If you pirate a movie but then stopped distributing it and deleted it, you're not off the hook.
    - markdown 10y ago
      Assume they have sold me their software. I am using this app that contains GPL licensed code. AFAIK, they can't take back this software I've bought from them, and due to the GPL, they are obliged to provide the source code for the entire app to me if I want it. Whether they stop infringing on any further sales of the software is of no consequence to me and to the software they already sold me. IANAL.
WWKong 10y ago
And maybe just follow the licensing terms?
mwfunk 10y ago
They're still not complying with the GPL though? It's completely cut and dried, it's not an argument where people can have differing opinions with varying degrees of validity. The GPL is a very well-known and widely understood license.
- nicky0 10y ago
  But if you stop infringing the GPL, the terms of the GPL no longer apply, so you cannot be forced to obey it's terms. You can however be sued for damages due to the historic copyright infringement.
- nicky0 10y ago
  But if you stop infringing the GPL, the terms of the GPL no longer apply, so you cannot be forced to obey it's terms. You can however be sued for damages due to the historic copyright infringement.
- nicky0 10y ago
  But if you stop infringing the GPL, the terms of the GPL no longer apply, so you cannot be forced to obey it's terms. You can however be sued for damages due to the historic copyright infringement.
Lazare 10y ago
> lay down the facts, don't get down to the mud, but clearly expose the other side's errors - with class! That is, indeed, a good way to respond to an accusation. It is not, in any sense, what Wix did. The response was free of facts, snarky, and didn't even address the claims the other side made, much less expose any errors. What Wix needed to do was say "oh hey, good catch, we'll be compliant soon" or "thanks but we think we're compliant". They did neither.
- harperlee 10y ago
  Ok, fair point. I might have been light on the facts of the case. But (the following is not you specifically :) but I can't just edit my original post) I got several negatives... They are not meant to show disagreement, if I'm not mistaken. Please remember to comment when you down vote if you see my comment as against the policies - otherwise there is no way to improve HN comments.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

weinzierl 10y ago

This response still doesn't address the core issue: The Wix mobile App uses GPL code but the rest of the source code of the app has not been made public so far as required by the GPL. At least they missed to add a written offer to distribute the source code. If they will publish the source if someone requests it has to be seen. When it comes to attribution it gets more difficult. As far as I understand the code from Wordpress is under plain vanilla GPL 2 without any supplements [1], so attribution is not required. [1] https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/blob/develop/LICENSE https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/blo... EDIT: If anything, this whole controversy shows one thing: Open source licenses (particularly the GPL) are still not widely understood. (I assume ignorance on WIX's side).

firasd 10y ago
Exactly. Regarding "everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source", unfortunately the GPL doesn't let you redistribute code after modifying it while only releasing the modifications. I guess "we will release the app you saw as well" may mean that they'd open source the whole app and thus be compliant, but it's unclear. Also the fact that the company was once also known as "Wixpress" is easy to verify [1], not sure why he would contest that. [1] http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193125-13-387285/1576789/filing.pdf http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193...
mbesto 10y ago
From the lead developer: https://medium.com/@talkol/how-i-found-myself-accused-of-stealing-code-from-wordpress-a7350da9f9f2#.wym6nvgmv https://medium.com/@talkol/how-i-found-myself-accused-of-ste... > I know some developers are scared of using GPL, apparently for a pretty good reason. The WordPress GPL Rich Text component in question, is actually a wrapper around another Rich Text component named ZSSRichTextEditor which is licensed MIT. In retrospect it would have been easier to use it directly. https://github.com/nnhubbard/ZSSRichTextEditor https://github.com/nnhubbard/ZSSRichTextEditor https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS So, Wix built a wrapper for a GPL piece of code, which was just a wrapper for a MIT piece of code. According to this tweet[0], the only thing Wix needs to do is to assign a GPL license to their code...but alas IANAL. [0] - https://twitter.com/nitrogen/status/792486850845773824 https://twitter.com/nitrogen/status/792486850845773824 EDIT - From the OP's blog: > When you embed and use GPL code, you have to release the entire thing as GPL. (That’s why it’s called a viral license.) So they need to release not just their changes to the editor, but the entire app that was distributed.

gk1 10y ago

The post being referenced: https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/ https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/

gnicholas 10y ago
Thx for posting. Seeing that this wasn't linked in the "Dear Matt" letter made me wonder if it was left off accidentally or on purpose. IMO, it looks like the response didn't really address the core complaint of the original letter. Not conclusive, but makes it seem less like an accident.
- unreal37 10y ago
  Neither the CEO or the developer linked to the original. That's definitely on purpose.
mk3 10y ago
For me I see Matt as an dog trying to mark what is his and slapping GPL license on top of everything. If so I would like to see some of the woocommerce plugins released publicly as it falls under GPL
- mpcod 10y ago
  WC plugins are 100% GPL. If you take a delivery of a plugin, you get all of the source code, and have all of the freedoms to use / modify etc. as WP itself.
  - ajsalminen 10y ago
    The whole situation with large amounts of "premium" plugins that apparently are GPL for the most part (or at least should be) but don't like to talk about it, include all kinds of license activation features and are split into a separate "free" version with reduced feature set and advertisements splattered all over is a little strange. It's also very off putting when you're used to the typical way open source is developed and distributed.

detaro 10y ago

> If you need source code that we have, and we have not yet released, then, most likely we will be happy to share, you only need to ask. Well, the initial blog post makes clear what source code Automattic thinks they (and everybody) needs...

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

pavlov 10y ago

"Yes, we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the application (that is the concept of open source right?), and everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source ..." That is not the concept of the GPL though. They need to release the source for the entire derived work, not just that one component. It's not Wix's choice -- it's required by the license, and the act of incorporating code under that license makes them bound by it. For a letter written by a CEO, this one seems strangely oblivious to the real issues. Did he run it through the legal department at all? (Presumably not, since it's the weekend.) Abrahami writes: "If you believe that we need to give you credit" -- but that's not the issue at hand. It gives the impression that he doesn't understand the differences between open source licenses, and that can be a serious liability for a company that builds so heavily on other people's code. [Edit] I actually wish the GPL were finally tested in court, because that would resolve a long-standing question around its enforceability. The CEO of Wix admitted that the derived work in this case contains "more than 3 million lines of code"... The copyright owner of the GPL'd module could sue them to have all that released under the GPL, and (assuming Wix wouldn't comply) then we would finally know if the license holds up in court or not.

tzs 10y ago
> The CEO of Wix admitted that the derived work in this case contains "more than 3 million lines of code"... The copyright owner of the GPL'd module could sue them to have all that released under the GPL, and (assuming Wix wouldn't comply) then we would finally know if the license holds up in court or not. The copyright owner would win, but all they would likely get out of the court is an injunction stopping Wix from distributing the infringing product and monetary damages. They would probably not be able to force Wix to release source code. If the GPL code is just a wrapper around MIT licensed code, as has been claimed, Wix should be able to quickly change their code to use that MIT code directly instead of using WordPress' GPL wrapper.
- pavlov 10y ago
  That would still be a major victory for the GPL. To my knowledge it has never been tested in court in the USA. Everyone knows that the GPL is being commonly violated by companies that just don't care and developers who don't understand it. Any US legal precedent around GPL would be welcome.

pulse7 10y ago

WordPress has GPL license and not LGPL! This means that if Wix uses/links ANY part of WordPress, the whole Wix should be under GPL license and source code must be made public because Wix is distributed and not used internally only (GPLv2, http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/158789/can-i-link-to-a-gpl-library-from-a-closed-source-application http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/15878...)

wav-part 10y ago
How about linking to your own wrapper library which would be custom licensed in addition to GPL ? closed_binary (closed) --> libW (GPL+custom) --> Wordpress (GPL)
- TD-Linux 10y ago
  libW in this case would pretty clearly be a derived work in this case, so would also need to carry the GPL license.
  - wav-part 10y ago
    True but libW also has custom licence relieving closed_binary from make-it-gpl requirement. Unless GPL forbids libW to be anything but GPL'd.
    - fourthark 10y ago
      It does.
    - pluma 10y ago
      That's why it's called a "viral" license. If your code directly links GPL code, your code is now GPL code too. This is different from the non-viral LGPL (and MIT/BSD/whatever) which permits linking without "infecting" the linking code. There's a handy workaround that is 1) never actually distributing the linking code or 2) putting the code behind a network interface and talking to that instead of linking to the code itself. Both of these mean you're not "distributing" the infected code, so the requirement to publish the source code is not triggered. The second workaround is addressed by the Affero GPL which also requires source code to be published as an interface rather than as a distributed binary.

potatosareok 10y ago

What the hell is this these are companies that make millions of dollars a year arguing on the weekend with public blog posts. This is what lawyers are for. I automatically assume if you try to argue online you're in the wrong and are counting on public opinion to save you.

eadz 10y ago
Not even lawyers, just raise it as an issue and try to work something out before yelling "Stealing Code" all over the internet. There are so many packages, libraries & dependencies out there that missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose.
- pluma 10y ago
  > missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose This doesn't sound like the typical "junior dev who doesn't understand licenses added a GPL dependency" situation. Especially considering Wix's reply. If you're arguing that nobody at Wix understands the implication of software licensing you're arguing all of their senior developers are unfit to hold senior positions. A basic understanding of software licenses (i.e. at least Unlicense/CC0 vs MIT/BSD/Apache2 vs LGPL vs GPL/AGPL) is one of the first things I expect every junior developer to learn when working on a company product that involves third-party code. This is either a rookie mistake (in which case Wix should have owned up to it and fixed it), malice or ignorance. And I'm not sure ignorance would save them any more respect than malice.
fourthark 10y ago
Or, posting online before contacting each other directly? Incomprehensible to me.

blintz 10y ago

> "we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the application" Well, now you must release the source code of that whole application, immediately. There's no argument to be had, no "I did not even know we were fighting" - there's no fight, just legally binding requirements on what you release.

lwf 10y ago
The GPL doesn't force your hand; "you have to release your code" is never the case. You can always just stop infringing :) (IANAL, this is not legal advice)
- 0x0 10y ago
  Isn't the alternative admitting you have committed copyright infringement?
  - tptacek 10y ago
    Yes, but that only entitles you to monetary damages, which may be small in this case.
    - 0x0 10y ago
      Why do you think the monetary damages are small? Going head-to-head against a company that is apparently valued over $1billion by stealing their source code sounds expensive.
    - brazzledazzle 10y ago
      Depends on if it's determined to be "derivative" right?
    - dctoedt 10y ago
      Monetary damages can be in the amount of the infringer's profits arising from the infringement. [The following is copied and pasted from a Common Draft annotation:] Consider the case of Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 886 F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1989) (Frank Music II): [1] + The MGM Grand Hotel had a floor show called Hallelujah Hollywood!, which included ‘tributes' to various MGM movies. + The floor show incorporated significant portions of the musical Kismet, which had been made into an MGM movie. + The court found that this went beyond MGM's ‘movie rights' and therefore infringed the copyright in the musical. + The resulting damage award included not just a portion of profits from the floor show itself, but 2% of the overall profits from the MGM Grand's hotel operations — including 2% of the casino profits — which, the court found, were indirectly attributable to the promotional value of the infringing floor show. [1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16903471126265449346 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=169034711262654...

alanh 10y ago

Not a good first impression, Wix: https://alanhogan.com/files/wix-blog-first-impression.png https://alanhogan.com/files/wix-blog-first-impression.png

prh8 10y ago

I think that was very well done by the Wix CEO. It doesn't matter that he doesn't seem to understand GPL. His job is not to put out a blog post saying yes, we're idiots, liable for everything. His job is to put out a good look for the company, and then deal with this behind closed doors. This is meant as a fluff piece, and he knows better than to provide any definitive statements on what Wix will do, that they could be held too. Again, positive spin, and handle the rest in private.

return0 10y ago
Judging by the response here, he didnt put forward a good look.
- prh8 10y ago
  I don't think we are necessarily the specific target audience. If so, he probably would have done a better job with the technical details.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

zachruss92 10y ago

Yea, this is a question of GPL Licensing and Matt is right. WordPress and Automattic have both been huge proponents of open source and without GPL existing I would not be able to make a living (as well as the millions of software engineers in the world who use OSS every day). The GPL is pretty clear about using GPL software and creating derivative work (i.e. an iOS app that, in part, uses GPL Licensed code) then distributing it to others, that you have to also include the source code along with the GPL license. Wix should just open source the app and put an end to this - as it's obvious that they're violating the terms of the license.

stale2002 10y ago
Well, or they could just stop using the GPL code.
- davexunit 10y ago
  They still need to comply with the GPL for the software they have released to date.

bdcravens 10y ago

> There are more than 3 million lines of code in the Wix application This always bugs me and feels disingenuous. Should I count all the modules/gems in my app? (A quick check of a Rails app found about 1.4mloc but about 25kloc is code I wrote - which should I count?)

llamataboot 10y ago

The weird snarky passive-aggressive tone of this is really off-putting to me. "Hey dude, we'e released some cool stuff, check it out, maybe your business can use it"

cube00 10y ago
"...that is the concept of open source right?"
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
bluedino 10y ago
I think the weird tone or writing style is because the authors first language isn't English

jondubois 10y ago

Most people who are seriously involved in open source know that GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses. So, basically, if any company wants to incorporate a GPL product into their project for distribution, they would have to essentially make their entire project's source code public also under GPL - Which is a completely undesirable thing to do for any company. The bad part about GPL is that it applies to everyone except the licence owner. GPL is just the FSF's way of saying f* you to companies who didn't bother to read up on what GPL actually means. It doesn't actually fulfil its purpose as an open source license - It just puts all the leverage in the hands of the license owner. Hypothetically, if the GPL also applied to the creator of the GPL product THEN it would be fair - But that's not possible because the creator would never sue themselves for breaching their own GPL.

EvanAnderson 10y ago
Nobody forces anyone to modify and distribute GPL'd software. If you don't like the terms of the license don't agree to it. Clarification: If you don't agree with the GPL you also don't get to redistribute code licensed under its terms. Don't redistribute GPL'd code and somehow expect to not be bound by the license. If you don't like the GPL and don't agree w/ its terms that's fine, just don't redistribute GPL'd code then.
- delinka 10y ago
  If you don't like the terms of the license, don't use code licensed under that license. You can't just download GPL'd code, disagree with the license, and continue using the code in a manner incompatible with that license.
  - EvanAnderson 10y ago
    I'll clarify: Implicit in my "don't agree to it" was "you don't get to distribute it". I'm not attempting to say that one can "disagree" with the GPL yet still distribute code that's licensed under its terms.
  - jessaustin 10y ago

jwebb99 10y ago

Wait. What's going here? I've been reading some of the HN comments in response to this story and it seems you guys are saying that ANY codebase built on WP must be visibly released to the public. So does that mean, millions of WP sites with custom mods must relase release their code in some capacity? If so, where? And how am I supposed to declare where the sourcecode can be found--a dedicated page on my site, a comment in my HTML? I'm really struggling to understand how the guys at Wix are the villains in this story. It seems every year Mullenweg issues a Fatwa in response to some imagined violation of WP's GPL licence. He's really becoming quite belligerent over this crusade of his. Seriously, do we all need to release our source code if we build stuff on WP? If not, why the hell is Wix getting so much shit?

firasd 10y ago
It's more about distribution. So if you make some changes and keep it on your server you don't have to show the code to everyone, but if you release a plugin for third parties to download, then everyone who gets the download should be able to read, modify and distribute the plugin code under the same license. In this case the app is distributed to phones.
- ceejayoz 10y ago
  That gets a little iffy, though. If your custom plugin distributes CSS/JS/HTML to browsers, does that count?
  - delinka 10y ago
    If your custom plugin distributes its output, no. Generally speaking, the output of a GPL'd program is not also subject to the GPL (quines notwithstanding.)
    - ceejayoz 10y ago
      WordPress's JS (and I'd argue its CSS/HTML) is much more integral part of the code for the system than mere "output", IMO.

tlogan 10y ago

IANAL, but these guys are also not (but I think wix.com did consult them). The WordPress component in question is based MIT license which might not included in valid way as GPL and Wix.com is using that component. I assume Wix.com's layers told them that this component cannot be protected under GPL so they are ok to use them.

snorrah 10y ago

WOW DUDE Clearly a great opening line. If you write an open letter, try not sounding terrible in your letter.

athirnuaimi 10y ago

Given that this is from the CEO of a public company, it does not reflect well on WIX. CEOs set the tone for the rest of the company. Mr. Abrahami should have had the issue investigated and if what Wordpress says is true (and it looks like it it), apologize and take corrective action. That probably means removing the mobile app from the App Store while they rewrite parts of the app. Or they can release the source code. There really aren't other options. I've worked with and for several large software companies. They have all taken GPL licenses very seriously. Mistakes can occur but GPL is not something they trivialize.

JoshMnem 10y ago

It seems like there are misconceptions about the GPL in both Wix posts. It's interesting that Wix advertises "Start Your Own Stunning Blog" to customers: http://www.wix.com/start/blog http://www.wix.com/start/blog but they are using WordPress for their own company blog.

hellofunk 10y ago

The Wix CEO previously left a comment or two here in this thread but I see he has removed them. I think the heat is on, it is clear that he not only did not follow GPL but actually accidentally admitted to that in this own blog!

boulos 10y ago
Really? I don't see any deleted, dead or even flagged comments in this thread (I have showdead on).
- hellofunk 10y ago
  I definitely saw one last night, and I've looked for it again here today and I do not see it.

benguild 10y ago

Does Avashai Abarhami know what an "open letter" is?

Kiro 10y ago

I hate GPL. I don't want to publish my crappy code and make a fool of myself. No-one would want to use it anyway. I would be extremely impressed if they could even understand anything with all the esoteric and ugly hacks it exist of.

jondot 10y ago

FYI: Wix has tooling for verifying their OSS policy https://github.com/wix/wix-oss-ci-police https://github.com/wix/wix-oss-ci-police

pluma 10y ago
In other words: don't use that tool because you shouldn't trust Wix with handling OSS licensing correctly?

Lazare 10y ago

The tone of the response really rubs me the wrong way. > Wow, dude I did not even know we were fighting. It's not a fight; it's a dispute over licensing. > you say we have been taking from the open source community without giving back, well, of course, that isn’t true. No, you were accused of not following a specific license on a specific piece of code. > Here is a list of 224 projects on our public GitHub page Open source is not a swap meet; you can't violate a license if you voluntarily release some other code to make up for it. > and we will release the app you saw as well. If that means "we were inadvertently not in compliance, but we are releasing the code and will be in compliance shortly", then that needed a tweet at most, not a rambling blog post about the fact you've got 224 projects on github. So I'm guessing this does not mean they're taking steps to become compliant? > Yes, we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the application (that is the concept of open source right?) Yes, along with following the actual terms of the actual license when you use an open source library. You weren't accused of not adhering to the spirit of open source; you were accused of not following the letter of a license (which, if true, means you aren't adhering to the spirit of open source either). > If you need source code that we have, and we have not yet released, then, most likely we will be happy to share, you only need to ask. That's...what they did. You need to comply with the licenses of the libraries you use, you were asked to do it. You will "most likely" be happy to do it? You were asked; you're replying to being asked, and your answer is that you don't have an answer, but the odds are good that you'll have one someday? What does this even mean? Considering the sheer mass of words, it's amazing that the word "license" and "GPL" don't occur even once. There's no attempt to address or discuss the actual accusation being made, just vague assertions that some stuff will be released someday, maybe, if you're asked, and hey how about a coffee. All this needed was a tweet: "Thanks for heads-up; will be compliant shortly." Or maybe: "On advice of lawyers, we believe we are in full compliance, thanks." Reminds me of an old lawyer joke: If the facts are against you, hammer the law. If the law is against you, hammer the facts. If both are against you, hammer the table." I'm going to mark this down as "table hammering", and I think it rather sugests that Wix, at least, thinks their position sucks.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
10y ago

mk3 10y ago

People should realise that Matt also has for profit company Automatic and it's mostly defending his cash cow rather than spirit of open source. Also speaking about originaly MIT licensed editor code which suddenly becomes GPL: Taking someones work adding modifications on top and slapping different license on top wildly unethical. As it benefits only the person who slapped GPL on top. As I know if you use GPL licensed code you must have GPL license. At least in wordpress case: https://wordpress.org/about/license/ https://wordpress.org/about/license/. So author can not use the improvements Automatic engineers made while using his library for profit.

ryan-allen 10y ago
Very true. Automattic have heaps of closed source code to run their proprietary platform and they don't release that to the public, yet they demand it from others. Mullenweg has a history of "do as I say not as I do" in regards to GPL, and to my mind it's a bit of sour grapes on his part.
- league 10y ago
  Distribution changes this. They do not distribute WordPress.com for download. They do distribute WordPress.org
  - mpcod 10y ago
    Automattic doesn't do anything with WordPress.org but contribute to it. WordPress.com uses a lot of WordPress.org code and other open source code (that they wrote and distribute), but I imagine there is a lot of (probably stupidly ugly) back end stuff they have not released that helps them run a service as huge as WordPress.com ... but they aren't distributing it so... if they did, I am sure they would do so under GPL.

beejiu 10y ago

It is always amusing for people to debate about 'open source' and how licenses work. They, as the CEO of Wix has, repeat the same misunderstandings time and time again. You don't need a lawyer. You don't need an opinion. Set aside 15 minutes of your day and actually read the license. It is not complicated.

tarboreus 10y ago

This is pure obfuscation. He doesn't even mention the GPL in this post. He's legally obligated to release the entire application, and is probably scrambling now to find an Apache or MIT-licensed alternative to the WordPress editor.

mpcod 10y ago

Matt hits on part of the issue clearly in his update on his post. "I will say we look to Wix, Weebly, and Squarespace as innovators in the space with products that reach many small businesses, and Wix especially should be commended for its success and growth as a public company." It is unfair to take the best parts of your competitors work and so freely use it while ignoring the overall scope of the license which permitted you to do so in the first place, pretending there isn't long established precedent. If Wix wasn't a successful competitor, nobody would know about their use of this code. Nobody would care. Personally - it is why I love the GPL. I removes code from the equation because everyone who takes distribution has the code. So for services and apps, defense comes through excellence in execution, not defense through proprietary code (since running something successful requires so much more than simply code). It's why companies like to defend their market positions through proprietary code. They are afraid (and know) someone else could do it better, so they protect their investment at least by making someone else have to do it over as a hurdle to entry. Anyone can take WordPress.org, make a WordPress.com-like free blog hosting company, and completely compete with Automattic. Many try to with their own stacks, and clearly are not doing as well as WordPress.com. That's telling, and why Matt is in the right. My opinion is that it is a complete sin to include the good work of your competitor in your proprietary code. It is very revealing about the greediness and capacity of Wix's management to pull something like this. Even if they try to come off as good guys. They are hiding something bad. Why? No company this dishonest should be trusted with anything. If I was with Wix, I would move to someone else on principle. So ... what else are they doing? What are they doing with your information they have about you then? And I will for sure highlight this behavior to people I know who use Wix. Their only course of action to fix this is to admit their error and to fully open source their code. If they decide to retreat and remove the GPL'd code, it is a greater admission of what they were trying to do in the first place behind closed doors, and were just "unlucky" enough to get caught. Shame on you Wix. Fix it. I have pity on you for falling victim to Wall Street's greed. You owe the internet more than that.