5 ms·

My empathy is with Automatic on this one, but I still think it's the wrong move. "Now one could say that the license allows that and it's legal. Sure, but so i

My empathy is with Automatic on this one, but I still think it's the wrong move. "Now one could say that the license allows that and it's legal. Sure, but so is cutting their free access off. If WPEngine is just leeching and spending nothing on improving the product, there's no way anyone can compete with them on price. Open Source is expensive, people need to be paid."-jeswin If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source. Most companies I've dealt with would rather pay for commercial software and offload the risk onto the software company that use an Open Source project they view as risky in any way. Companies can already view Open Source projects as risky in a number of ways: lots of drama/turnover in a project, a single BFDL controls everything, viral license. For many projects the rewards from using it outweigh these risks. However, all the above risks can be evaluated before a company decides to build using an Open Source project. If projects are seen as able to block availability unilaterally without a license violation, that's a risk that can't be evaluated before investing perhaps millions using it. Of course, this would all be evaluated and we'd live in a better world if companies heavily using an Open Source project decided to allocate 1% of the software engineering budget as a donation to that project.

Terretta 2y ago
> Most companies I've dealt with would rather pay for commercial software and offload the risk onto the software company that use an Open Source project they view as risky in any way. This seems less applicable when the company is using the software to offer it as that commercial cut-out.
timeon 2y ago
I'm do not want to talk about whole thing, I do not know what to think about that but: > If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it... Isn't this more about infrastructure (wordpress.org)? All plugins are still downloadable and able to install via SFTP.
troyvit 2y ago
> If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source. But access to wordpress.org's servers has nothing to do with Open Source. WP Engine is free to use and modify the WordPress code to their heart's content. They just don't get to use the wordpress.org servers for free anymore.
- slouch 2y ago
  The software running on those servers was built by volunteers, some of which are now scrambling to help their clients who are blocked from using that software.
  - troyvit 2y ago
    Sure. The software is free. Why should the server be free?
  - hedgehog 2y ago
    Is the .org infrastructure built or operated by volunteers? It doesn't seem like that part is even open source.
- 015a 2y ago
  Sure, but I think at minimum there's a reasonable realty where Automattic/the foundation: 1. Creates an official policy that states the level of usage of the public WordPress services/resources which constitutes requiring a business relationship with the Foundation (e.g. N terabytes transferred per month) 2. Attach a dollar amount. 3. Inform WP-Engine that they're in violation of this new policy and they have N days to comply or their access will be terminated (where N is at least 90 but ideally 180/360). Matt's recent interview with the Primeagen suggests that while "discussions" with WP-Engine go back years, he couldn't give a straight answer for whether other services may be vulnerable to the same retribution WP-Engine faced, specifically and quantifiably why WP-Engine received retribution while other entities don't, and if specific prior notice of the actions Automattic took was given to WP-Engine. Instead, it was vibey: A bunch of "well, they use a lot, server resources, our trademark, yeah other entities use a lot too, but those other entities give back, stuff, to the community, WP-Engine gives back some stuff, but not enough." Prime tried to get more out of him multiple times but it just ended with him saying "I'm sorry, I'm sick and really tired".
Kwpolska 2y ago
> If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source. Companies can't use proprietary software without the risk of being banned or refused a licence renewal either.

Terretta 2y ago

> Most companies I've dealt with would rather pay for commercial software and offload the risk onto the software company that use an Open Source project they view as risky in any way. This seems less applicable when the company is using the software to offer it as that commercial cut-out.

timeon 2y ago

I'm do not want to talk about whole thing, I do not know what to think about that but: > If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it... Isn't this more about infrastructure (wordpress.org)? All plugins are still downloadable and able to install via SFTP.

troyvit 2y ago

> If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source. But access to wordpress.org's servers has nothing to do with Open Source. WP Engine is free to use and modify the WordPress code to their heart's content. They just don't get to use the wordpress.org servers for free anymore.

slouch 2y ago
The software running on those servers was built by volunteers, some of which are now scrambling to help their clients who are blocked from using that software.
- troyvit 2y ago
  Sure. The software is free. Why should the server be free?
- hedgehog 2y ago
  Is the .org infrastructure built or operated by volunteers? It doesn't seem like that part is even open source.
015a 2y ago
Sure, but I think at minimum there's a reasonable realty where Automattic/the foundation: 1. Creates an official policy that states the level of usage of the public WordPress services/resources which constitutes requiring a business relationship with the Foundation (e.g. N terabytes transferred per month) 2. Attach a dollar amount. 3. Inform WP-Engine that they're in violation of this new policy and they have N days to comply or their access will be terminated (where N is at least 90 but ideally 180/360). Matt's recent interview with the Primeagen suggests that while "discussions" with WP-Engine go back years, he couldn't give a straight answer for whether other services may be vulnerable to the same retribution WP-Engine faced, specifically and quantifiably why WP-Engine received retribution while other entities don't, and if specific prior notice of the actions Automattic took was given to WP-Engine. Instead, it was vibey: A bunch of "well, they use a lot, server resources, our trademark, yeah other entities use a lot too, but those other entities give back, stuff, to the community, WP-Engine gives back some stuff, but not enough." Prime tried to get more out of him multiple times but it just ended with him saying "I'm sorry, I'm sick and really tired".

Kwpolska 2y ago

> If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source. Companies can't use proprietary software without the risk of being banned or refused a licence renewal either.