6 ms·

The general consensus of commentators seems to be that Matt is wrong in the way he approached this matter. Going by the wisdom of the crowds, maybe that's true.

The general consensus of commentators seems to be that Matt is wrong in the way he approached this matter. Going by the wisdom of the crowds, maybe that's true. However, my question is this: has WPE given a factual rebuttal to Matt's claims? Especially, considering that their entire business is dependent on WordPress? I am concerned that in the eagerness to judge Matt's conflict of interest, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.

_fjg8 2y ago
Matt hasn’t made any claims that need a rebuttal. Matt’s claims are factually correct. The issue is that they’re immaterial. Matt has demanded that WPEngine pay 8% of their revenue to Matt’s company (Automattic). Matt has retroactively changed the terms of use of the WordPress trademark to create a violation by WPEngine. Matt has engineered the situation, we can’t separate the claims from the conduct because they’re one and the same. Matt’s position is (ostensibly) based on his hard line views about the moral obligation to contribute created through the use of open-source. The trademark sideshow is based on Matt’s understanding that a moral argument isn’t going to convince a private equity backed company to spend money they don’t need to spend. Matt believes WPEngine has a moral obligation to contribute and the trademark licensing fee is the easiest tool he has to force action. Matt is making a moral argument. WPEngine don’t care because they’re driven by money not morals.
- Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
  I think those final 8% demands we’ve heard about have been after months of stalled conversations with WP Engine. Given the lack of reliable information right now, I’m going to believe the individual that has a decades-long track record indicating that they care about open source over the private company that is legally obligated to pursue profit as its only objective.
  - aimazon 2y ago
    What are you choosing to believe? The 8% isn’t disputed. Matt has acknowledged it is true. Matt has acknowledged his actions are because he believes WPEngine are not fulfilling their moral obligation. The facts are settled, the question is whether you side with Matt’s belief about WPEngine’s obligations and how you feel about Matt’s actions (in the context of Matt operating a competitor).
    - Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
      I’m saying that his 8% demand sounds like the last line in a long conversation with an interlocutor acting in bad faith, trying to slow walk the inevitable demise of the relationship. If WP Engine had acted in good faith, Matt wouldn’t have had to come up with terms unilaterally.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - jcranmer 2y ago
    I do not think it appropriate to believe the individual who is in two roles and is trying to use his position in one role to benefit his other role, especially while trying to muddy in which role he is acting.
  - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
    > I think those final 8% demands we’ve heard about have been after months of stalled conversations with WP Engine. Who gives a shit, it doesn't matter. Why would he think WP Engine would pay anything they're not contractually obligated to pay? This has all played out similarly elsewhere, e.g. to the point that some companies have started to carve out a new types of licensing so that all of the "open source revenue" doesn't just get vacuumed up by the big clouds/hosting providers (e.g. see the "Fair Source" movement being promoted by Elastic and others). Matt could have gone down that route. I could easily imagine a million ways he could have handled this better and gotten the community on his side. Instead he's acting like a collosal asshole.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Are contracts everything? Matt created Wordpress. I think he’s more deserving of the spoils than some company whose owner is Silver Lake, one of the most evil PE firms. Reminder: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/skype-silver-lake-evil/ https://www.wired.com/2011/06/skype-silver-lake-evil/
      - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
        Again, who gives a shit? I'm in no way saying WP Engine is some sort of angelic organization, and I don't care. All I see is childlike behavior from someone who definitely should not be in control of both Automattic and the WordPress Foundation, and my guess is that if the board doesn't force his ouster that WPF will have serious issues with the IRS. Also, the whole point of open source is that you don't "own it" after it's open sourced. If you don't like those terms, license them under different ones, which exactly what the whole recent "Fair Source" movement is about and what other companies like Sentry have handled in a much more dignified fashion.
        salesynerd 2y ago
        Maybe, the newcomers have learnt the lessons from the travails of the old open source projects? That doesn't mean that the oldies should just suck it and keep quiet.
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    > the individual The same guy running a for profit company?
- salesynerd 2y ago
  I have, often, come across comments on HN threads that corporations that are driven only by money are evil. For example, many threads with Google, Facebook, et al have expressed such sentiments. If we agree that to be true, then WPE should also be considered evil, shouldn't it? Then, why so much defence for them and all vitriol for Matt? And, if we accept that WPE are right to focus only on the legality of their action, then should we not apply the same logic to all corporations when they focus on maximizing their revenues and profits?
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    If we agree that to be true, then Matt should be considered in the same light, as his demands to pay his corporation are driven by money.
  - fortyseven 2y ago
    All corporations are driven by money. Some are just shittier than others. And right now, in this instance, WPEngine is the lesser of the two. By, like, a lot.
glenstein 2y ago
>However, my question is this: has WPE given a factual rebuttal to Matt's claims? I mean... The article talks about this extensively. And the article is my first exposure to the issue but presumably it's not the first place where these points have been presented. The authority or obligation to give back isn't a legal one, the authority to demand 8% raises all kinds of conflict of interest issues and appears dubious if not outright illegal, the global message posted to admin dashboards was an abuse of power, and the banning from using plugins doesn't even pretend to have a legitimate pretense. Apparently part of the backstory here is there's a dizzying context, and there might be some subjectivity involved in surfacing these as the pertinent issues, but I wasn't left with the impression that the ball is in WPE's court to explain any kind of smoking gun that hasn't been accounted for by the discussion in the article.
- timeon 2y ago
  > The article talks about this extensively. The article is trying to manufacture consent with vague authority: "Most reasonable and knowledgeable people seem to share this opinion." While it is someone who is not impartial. He claimed that he worked in WPE before and than 'extensively' writes why it shouldn't matter - without telling anything. I'm not saying that what 'Matt' did is OK. Seems to me no party here is in right. But that is not my point. My point is that these kind of articles - especially lengthy vague ones - are just increasing the drama.
  - glenstein 2y ago
    I understand that part of hn policy is that comment through should be getting more nuanced over time, but this seems like a bunch of zoomed out fuzziness that barely touches on any details. The author makes all kinds of specific arguments that don't have anything to do with consensus, and the structure of the arguments is grounded on the inherent rightness or wrongness of interpretation of various rules, the existence are non-existent of copyright, the disproportionate and escalatory choices Matt has made, a whole host of specific arguments that don't have anything to do with where the consensus falls. They do mention that Matt has appeared to have turned many in the community against him, but the arguments are pretty freestanding even if you want to set that aside, and there's also another interpretation other than manufacturing consent which is simply that it's a legitimate observation about what's really happening. I can't say for sure, but there's so much more going on here that's more specific to the issue of right and wrong within zooming out and saying "gosh this sure is a lot of drama". I think if that's the level at what you're engaging in the conversation it's just making everything fuzzier.

_fjg8 2y ago

Matt hasn’t made any claims that need a rebuttal. Matt’s claims are factually correct. The issue is that they’re immaterial. Matt has demanded that WPEngine pay 8% of their revenue to Matt’s company (Automattic). Matt has retroactively changed the terms of use of the WordPress trademark to create a violation by WPEngine. Matt has engineered the situation, we can’t separate the claims from the conduct because they’re one and the same. Matt’s position is (ostensibly) based on his hard line views about the moral obligation to contribute created through the use of open-source. The trademark sideshow is based on Matt’s understanding that a moral argument isn’t going to convince a private equity backed company to spend money they don’t need to spend. Matt believes WPEngine has a moral obligation to contribute and the trademark licensing fee is the easiest tool he has to force action. Matt is making a moral argument. WPEngine don’t care because they’re driven by money not morals.

Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
I think those final 8% demands we’ve heard about have been after months of stalled conversations with WP Engine. Given the lack of reliable information right now, I’m going to believe the individual that has a decades-long track record indicating that they care about open source over the private company that is legally obligated to pursue profit as its only objective.
- aimazon 2y ago
  What are you choosing to believe? The 8% isn’t disputed. Matt has acknowledged it is true. Matt has acknowledged his actions are because he believes WPEngine are not fulfilling their moral obligation. The facts are settled, the question is whether you side with Matt’s belief about WPEngine’s obligations and how you feel about Matt’s actions (in the context of Matt operating a competitor).
  - Zamiel_Snawley 2y ago
    I’m saying that his 8% demand sounds like the last line in a long conversation with an interlocutor acting in bad faith, trying to slow walk the inevitable demise of the relationship. If WP Engine had acted in good faith, Matt wouldn’t have had to come up with terms unilaterally.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- jcranmer 2y ago
  I do not think it appropriate to believe the individual who is in two roles and is trying to use his position in one role to benefit his other role, especially while trying to muddy in which role he is acting.
- hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
  > I think those final 8% demands we’ve heard about have been after months of stalled conversations with WP Engine. Who gives a shit, it doesn't matter. Why would he think WP Engine would pay anything they're not contractually obligated to pay? This has all played out similarly elsewhere, e.g. to the point that some companies have started to carve out a new types of licensing so that all of the "open source revenue" doesn't just get vacuumed up by the big clouds/hosting providers (e.g. see the "Fair Source" movement being promoted by Elastic and others). Matt could have gone down that route. I could easily imagine a million ways he could have handled this better and gotten the community on his side. Instead he's acting like a collosal asshole.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Are contracts everything? Matt created Wordpress. I think he’s more deserving of the spoils than some company whose owner is Silver Lake, one of the most evil PE firms. Reminder: https://www.wired.com/2011/06/skype-silver-lake-evil/ https://www.wired.com/2011/06/skype-silver-lake-evil/
    - hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
      Again, who gives a shit? I'm in no way saying WP Engine is some sort of angelic organization, and I don't care. All I see is childlike behavior from someone who definitely should not be in control of both Automattic and the WordPress Foundation, and my guess is that if the board doesn't force his ouster that WPF will have serious issues with the IRS. Also, the whole point of open source is that you don't "own it" after it's open sourced. If you don't like those terms, license them under different ones, which exactly what the whole recent "Fair Source" movement is about and what other companies like Sentry have handled in a much more dignified fashion.
      - salesynerd 2y ago
        Maybe, the newcomers have learnt the lessons from the travails of the old open source projects? That doesn't mean that the oldies should just suck it and keep quiet.
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  > the individual The same guy running a for profit company?
salesynerd 2y ago
I have, often, come across comments on HN threads that corporations that are driven only by money are evil. For example, many threads with Google, Facebook, et al have expressed such sentiments. If we agree that to be true, then WPE should also be considered evil, shouldn't it? Then, why so much defence for them and all vitriol for Matt? And, if we accept that WPE are right to focus only on the legality of their action, then should we not apply the same logic to all corporations when they focus on maximizing their revenues and profits?
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  If we agree that to be true, then Matt should be considered in the same light, as his demands to pay his corporation are driven by money.
- fortyseven 2y ago
  All corporations are driven by money. Some are just shittier than others. And right now, in this instance, WPEngine is the lesser of the two. By, like, a lot.

glenstein 2y ago

>However, my question is this: has WPE given a factual rebuttal to Matt's claims? I mean... The article talks about this extensively. And the article is my first exposure to the issue but presumably it's not the first place where these points have been presented. The authority or obligation to give back isn't a legal one, the authority to demand 8% raises all kinds of conflict of interest issues and appears dubious if not outright illegal, the global message posted to admin dashboards was an abuse of power, and the banning from using plugins doesn't even pretend to have a legitimate pretense. Apparently part of the backstory here is there's a dizzying context, and there might be some subjectivity involved in surfacing these as the pertinent issues, but I wasn't left with the impression that the ball is in WPE's court to explain any kind of smoking gun that hasn't been accounted for by the discussion in the article.

timeon 2y ago
> The article talks about this extensively. The article is trying to manufacture consent with vague authority: "Most reasonable and knowledgeable people seem to share this opinion." While it is someone who is not impartial. He claimed that he worked in WPE before and than 'extensively' writes why it shouldn't matter - without telling anything. I'm not saying that what 'Matt' did is OK. Seems to me no party here is in right. But that is not my point. My point is that these kind of articles - especially lengthy vague ones - are just increasing the drama.
- glenstein 2y ago
  I understand that part of hn policy is that comment through should be getting more nuanced over time, but this seems like a bunch of zoomed out fuzziness that barely touches on any details. The author makes all kinds of specific arguments that don't have anything to do with consensus, and the structure of the arguments is grounded on the inherent rightness or wrongness of interpretation of various rules, the existence are non-existent of copyright, the disproportionate and escalatory choices Matt has made, a whole host of specific arguments that don't have anything to do with where the consensus falls. They do mention that Matt has appeared to have turned many in the community against him, but the arguments are pretty freestanding even if you want to set that aside, and there's also another interpretation other than manufacturing consent which is simply that it's a legitimate observation about what's really happening. I can't say for sure, but there's so much more going on here that's more specific to the issue of right and wrong within zooming out and saying "gosh this sure is a lot of drama". I think if that's the level at what you're engaging in the conversation it's just making everything fuzzier.