4 ms·

> Sadly, instead of supporting open source with $5 million, they each will spend 10 million on lawyers. I think both sides more or less see this as a case of s

by csa 2y ago

> Sadly, instead of supporting open source with $5 million, they each will spend 10 million on lawyers. I think both sides more or less see this as a case of standing up against a bully — they may lose out in the short run (in terms of money), but they think that they will discourage future bullying by fighting back. I’m not sure if either side is right, but that’s why they both drew a line in the sand, imho.

dmix 2y ago
Ignoring the executive drama (on both sides) it is in bad taste to build WPEngine off an Open Source project and barely contribute back to it. It's probably a case where their version is so heavily customized they don't spend much time on the fundamentals. But still. I wonder if that had a petty rationale as well. Relationships are important in business.
- initplus 2y ago
  Harder to justify contributing back when the open source project is so tightly coupled to your biggest for profit competitor.
- busterarm 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - onli 2y ago
    HN isn't one person. There was always a lot of criticism of those closed source licenses. See for example the thread when Redis fell, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562
  - immibis 2y ago
    WPEngine contributed a lot to WordPress. It was, in fact, one of the biggest sponsors of the conference it was just banned from participating in. It also wrote the most popular plugin. When Matt says "contribute" he means monetarily. Probably (speculation) because his company is about to be bankrupt without finding a way to get more money.
  - echelon 2y ago
    Matt shouldn't have made his thing "open source" [1], just like Elastic and other vendors shouldn't have allowed Amazon to set up shop and steal their work. Unrelated organizations coming in, soaking up all the profit, and not contributing back is horrible. "Open source" needs to be amended to prevent this. Something like MAU, MRR, or market% seems like a healthy way to limit big time corporations from taking over. [1] Hindsight is 20/20.
    - Kye 2y ago
      He had no choice. It was a fork of b2.

by csa 2y ago

dmix 2y ago

Ignoring the executive drama (on both sides) it is in bad taste to build WPEngine off an Open Source project and barely contribute back to it. It's probably a case where their version is so heavily customized they don't spend much time on the fundamentals. But still. I wonder if that had a petty rationale as well. Relationships are important in business.

initplus 2y ago
Harder to justify contributing back when the open source project is so tightly coupled to your biggest for profit competitor.
busterarm 2y ago
[flagged]
- onli 2y ago
  HN isn't one person. There was always a lot of criticism of those closed source licenses. See for example the thread when Redis fell, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39772562
- immibis 2y ago
  WPEngine contributed a lot to WordPress. It was, in fact, one of the biggest sponsors of the conference it was just banned from participating in. It also wrote the most popular plugin. When Matt says "contribute" he means monetarily. Probably (speculation) because his company is about to be bankrupt without finding a way to get more money.
- echelon 2y ago
  Matt shouldn't have made his thing "open source" [1], just like Elastic and other vendors shouldn't have allowed Amazon to set up shop and steal their work. Unrelated organizations coming in, soaking up all the profit, and not contributing back is horrible. "Open source" needs to be amended to prevent this. Something like MAU, MRR, or market% seems like a healthy way to limit big time corporations from taking over. [1] Hindsight is 20/20.
  - Kye 2y ago
    He had no choice. It was a fork of b2.