4 ms·

From the article: > WordPress’s GPL code Which, is a FSF license. What change are you advocating for in this situation?

lolinder 2y ago
It's a question of philosophy, not license. The whole "release code under GPL but get angry when other people besides you start making more money than you do from it" thing is strikingly different from the attitude in the GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm... The difference I'm flagging is about why you write the code, not just what license you choose. Free Software is about user freedoms, which freedoms are in no way hampered by the existence of an entity like WP Engine but are hampered when you go scorched earth against said entity.
- gtirloni 2y ago
  The issue at hand seems to be WP Engine using Automattic-sponsored infrastructure for their own for-profit services, not modifications to free software.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    That's the place that Matt decided to hit them, but that's not where the complaint lies. The complaint as laid out in the blog posts [0][1] is nearly identical to the complaints that Elastic had against AWS: trademark use causing confusion and drawing customers away from the "official" offerings. Beyond that, Matt absolutely has beef with modifications that WP Engine has made to the free software, going so far as to say that these modifications mean that what they're offering is "not WordPress". Never mind that WordPress.com is likewise a bastardized modification—that's okay because it's "us" doing the modifying! > This is one of the many reasons they are a cancer to WordPress, and it’s important to remember that unchecked, cancer will spread. WP Engine is setting a poor standard that others may look at and think is ok to replicate. We must set a higher standard to ensure WordPress is here for the next 100 years. This kind of attitude is incompatible with the premise of Free Software, which places a strong emphasis on encouraging reuse and modification to suit user needs. [0] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/ https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/ [1] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/ https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/
    - gtirloni 2y ago
      I haven't been following the drama since the beginning so thanks for the perspective. Totally agree this isn't good.
- jahewson 2y ago
  What people say is one thing but one should draw conclusions instead from what they do. Too often the GPL is used to enforce a two-tier system in which everyone is free but some are more free than others. The original creators of a work retain proprietary and commercial relicensing rights while everyone else gets serfdom.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    Agreed. And the communications I'm seeing out of WordPress.org around this very much suggest that WordPress is firmly in that category.
  - CaptArmchair 2y ago
    That's not because of the GPL. The GPL has little to do with barring access to a platform on which code is published. Arguably, if a copy existed elsewhere, say GitHub, then WPEngine is free to use that code according to the GPL. In other words: once code is published with the GPL and someone has a copy, the original creators can do little to nothing to stop them from using said code however they see fit. That's what drives forking. In the same vain, original creators always have, and will have, the freedom as rights holders over creative works, to change the license on new versions published. Of course, the caveat being holding the rights over contributions made by third parties (hence the existence of contested contributor agreements). The real issue here is a for-profit entity driving the governance of a non-profit entity. There's not just the ethical but also legality at play here. And this has little to do with copyright.
- redwall_hp 2y ago
  It's also worth noting that WordPress is a descendent of the B2/cafelog blogging software. Automattic, themselves, are the other people making money off of someone else's project...and now they're mad that other other people are doing the same.

It's a question of philosophy, not license. The whole "release code under GPL but get angry when other people besides you start making more money than you do from it" thing is strikingly different from the attitude in the GPL FAQ: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm... The difference I'm flagging is about why you write the code, not just what license you choose. Free Software is about user freedoms, which freedoms are in no way hampered by the existence of an entity like WP Engine but are hampered when you go scorched earth against said entity.

gtirloni 2y ago
The issue at hand seems to be WP Engine using Automattic-sponsored infrastructure for their own for-profit services, not modifications to free software.
- lolinder 2y ago
  That's the place that Matt decided to hit them, but that's not where the complaint lies. The complaint as laid out in the blog posts [0][1] is nearly identical to the complaints that Elastic had against AWS: trademark use causing confusion and drawing customers away from the "official" offerings. Beyond that, Matt absolutely has beef with modifications that WP Engine has made to the free software, going so far as to say that these modifications mean that what they're offering is "not WordPress". Never mind that WordPress.com is likewise a bastardized modification—that's okay because it's "us" doing the modifying! > This is one of the many reasons they are a cancer to WordPress, and it’s important to remember that unchecked, cancer will spread. WP Engine is setting a poor standard that others may look at and think is ok to replicate. We must set a higher standard to ensure WordPress is here for the next 100 years. This kind of attitude is incompatible with the premise of Free Software, which places a strong emphasis on encouraging reuse and modification to suit user needs. [0] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/ https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/ [1] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/ https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/
  - gtirloni 2y ago
    I haven't been following the drama since the beginning so thanks for the perspective. Totally agree this isn't good.
jahewson 2y ago
What people say is one thing but one should draw conclusions instead from what they do. Too often the GPL is used to enforce a two-tier system in which everyone is free but some are more free than others. The original creators of a work retain proprietary and commercial relicensing rights while everyone else gets serfdom.
- lolinder 2y ago
  Agreed. And the communications I'm seeing out of WordPress.org around this very much suggest that WordPress is firmly in that category.
- CaptArmchair 2y ago
  That's not because of the GPL. The GPL has little to do with barring access to a platform on which code is published. Arguably, if a copy existed elsewhere, say GitHub, then WPEngine is free to use that code according to the GPL. In other words: once code is published with the GPL and someone has a copy, the original creators can do little to nothing to stop them from using said code however they see fit. That's what drives forking. In the same vain, original creators always have, and will have, the freedom as rights holders over creative works, to change the license on new versions published. Of course, the caveat being holding the rights over contributions made by third parties (hence the existence of contested contributor agreements). The real issue here is a for-profit entity driving the governance of a non-profit entity. There's not just the ethical but also legality at play here. And this has little to do with copyright.
redwall_hp 2y ago
It's also worth noting that WordPress is a descendent of the B2/cafelog blogging software. Automattic, themselves, are the other people making money off of someone else's project...and now they're mad that other other people are doing the same.