5 ms·

This is a problem unique to Open Source because the root problem itself is baked into OSS and Free Software. The very foundation of Free Software is the idea t

This is a problem unique to Open Source because the root problem itself is baked into OSS and Free Software. The very foundation of Free Software is the idea that a user can do whatever they like, are given the source code, and pass those freedoms on to their users. There are no protections offered to the developer, and that is not a bug it's the explicit point of the model. There are advantages and disadvantages to this model. But the model is what it is. Word Press is unhappy that WP Engine is using the software exactly as the license allows. Drupal has created a parallel organisation which monitors and rewards participation. This doesn't "solve" the problem, it just adds a commercial and administrative layer. Proprietary software solved the problem by not being Open Source. Others have adopted a "source available" license, which may come with restrictions. In other words, lots of people have solved the problem simply by not being "open source" (not necessarily by closing the source, but rather by restricting usage.) Word Press are picking a fight with a user, who is using it exactly as they licensed it. If Word Press don't like the rules of the game then they can change the rules. That is 100% under their control. But don't use the "common rule book" then complain when the other team plays to the rules.

roenxi 2y ago
Although I agree with what you say, that seems to be mischaricterising the blog post - he is talking about the community rather than the software. It is a bit like free speech and ideologies like communism. Do I support the right of people to spread communist messages? Yes. Do I support them in doing so? No. Indeed, I would pick a fight with them on the subject - it just happens that suppressing them by censorship is a bad strategy. Similarly, the Drupal Association seems to be supporting the general freedom of all software users but the people it actually supports is a much smaller group. The specifics might not work, but building a community isn't related to the license of a piece of software.
- mcmcmc 2y ago
  So you would physically fight someone over political speech? That doesn’t seem to respect their right to it. Curious why you’d choose to harp on communist ideology when there are real live Nazis again.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    bruce511's comment included "Word Press are picking a fight with a user, who is using it exactly as they licensed it". In this comment the word "fight" means to write a blog post calling them parasites and maybe have some legal arguments.
senko 2y ago
They can't change the rules of the game because WordPress itself is a fork. [0] This is GPL working exactly as it's designed to do, ensuring whoever forks the software must allow others to do the same. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress
- okanat 2y ago
  If the majority of the code and functionality is written by WordPress, Having a little GPL component in there will not affect them to change the license. GPL's idea of infecting copyright with small libraries is a convention. I don't think it will hold in an actual court that will test who wrote what at what degree of substance.
  - xandrius 2y ago
    Did the little GPL component force itself into the codebase without anyone noticing? Was it so useless that nobody could have removed it from the project to get rid of this obvious parasite? I think it will hold in court specifically because, since it is so aggressive in what it is set to do, a company choosing to use it in their otherwise non-GPL codebase is declaring that it is not easily replaceable and thus proving it contributes to the overall value.
throwaway48476 2y ago
More people should try splitting the difference with source available licenses that turn into GPL after a year. The point of open source was to change the balance of power from developer to user, it was not an economic system. Theres plenty of room in the middle to balance interests without resorting to predatory proprietary licenses. The only workable way to fund software development is for users to pay. The idea is that if the user, after some time, can take the source to a new development team then both parties are invested in continuing the relationship in a stable way unlike proprietary licenses where the incentive is to squeeze to the users limit. It also solves the abandonware issue.
Terretta 2y ago
> Word Press is unhappy that WP Engine is using the software exactly as the license allows. Maybe, but they seem to be basing their legal argument on trademarks, that WPE is using the same WordPress and WooCommerce labels as the labels on the primary maintainer's services based on the upstream code base, when, according to them, the downstream forks of pieces of this are not the same service and WPE doesn't have rights to that trade dress. In addition to the methods you talk about, trademarks are another method of "solving the problem".

roenxi 2y ago

Although I agree with what you say, that seems to be mischaricterising the blog post - he is talking about the community rather than the software. It is a bit like free speech and ideologies like communism. Do I support the right of people to spread communist messages? Yes. Do I support them in doing so? No. Indeed, I would pick a fight with them on the subject - it just happens that suppressing them by censorship is a bad strategy. Similarly, the Drupal Association seems to be supporting the general freedom of all software users but the people it actually supports is a much smaller group. The specifics might not work, but building a community isn't related to the license of a piece of software.

mcmcmc 2y ago
So you would physically fight someone over political speech? That doesn’t seem to respect their right to it. Curious why you’d choose to harp on communist ideology when there are real live Nazis again.
- roenxi 2y ago
  bruce511's comment included "Word Press are picking a fight with a user, who is using it exactly as they licensed it". In this comment the word "fight" means to write a blog post calling them parasites and maybe have some legal arguments.

senko 2y ago

They can't change the rules of the game because WordPress itself is a fork. [0] This is GPL working exactly as it's designed to do, ensuring whoever forks the software must allow others to do the same. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress

okanat 2y ago
If the majority of the code and functionality is written by WordPress, Having a little GPL component in there will not affect them to change the license. GPL's idea of infecting copyright with small libraries is a convention. I don't think it will hold in an actual court that will test who wrote what at what degree of substance.
- xandrius 2y ago
  Did the little GPL component force itself into the codebase without anyone noticing? Was it so useless that nobody could have removed it from the project to get rid of this obvious parasite? I think it will hold in court specifically because, since it is so aggressive in what it is set to do, a company choosing to use it in their otherwise non-GPL codebase is declaring that it is not easily replaceable and thus proving it contributes to the overall value.

throwaway48476 2y ago

More people should try splitting the difference with source available licenses that turn into GPL after a year. The point of open source was to change the balance of power from developer to user, it was not an economic system. Theres plenty of room in the middle to balance interests without resorting to predatory proprietary licenses. The only workable way to fund software development is for users to pay. The idea is that if the user, after some time, can take the source to a new development team then both parties are invested in continuing the relationship in a stable way unlike proprietary licenses where the incentive is to squeeze to the users limit. It also solves the abandonware issue.

Terretta 2y ago

> Word Press is unhappy that WP Engine is using the software exactly as the license allows. Maybe, but they seem to be basing their legal argument on trademarks, that WPE is using the same WordPress and WooCommerce labels as the labels on the primary maintainer's services based on the upstream code base, when, according to them, the downstream forks of pieces of this are not the same service and WPE doesn't have rights to that trade dress. In addition to the methods you talk about, trademarks are another method of "solving the problem".