4 ms·

A lot of the comments seem to call out Matt (right or wrong). But that’s the easy thing to do. No one dares address the systemic issue of for profit corporatio

A lot of the comments seem to call out Matt (right or wrong). But that’s the easy thing to do. No one dares address the systemic issue of for profit corporations exploitatively (ab)using open source software. There is a social contract that people should contribute back, and while it’s largely unenforceable, as it should be, when it’s happening on a systemic level something has to be done. And we are all complicit if we don’t at least say that much and spare some good will towards the guy actively in that fight at least superficially

gjsman-1000 2y ago
I’m with DHH. The license is the license. The moment there’s unwritten obligations, the movement will implode - simply because unwritten obligations are always up to interpretation. Don’t like the status quo? Use a different license. This is especially true of WordPress, considering it’s an unlicensed fork of an earlier project itself.
lolinder 2y ago
> No one dares address the systemic issue of for profit corporations exploitatively (ab)using open source software. Calling out Matt and Automattic for their abusive behavior is addressing the systemic issue of for-profit corporations exploitatively abusing open source software. We're talking about a company that released GPL software, waited a decade for another company to build their entire business around said GPL software, and then came at them with threats of going to "nuclear war" (their words) with them if they didn't agree to extremely exploitative terms on top of the GPL licensing under which the software was released. That is the affront to Free Software that's happening here. WP Engine may or may not be a good company, but it is Matt who has given up on freedom. If you lure people in with a promise of Free Software and then hold a gun to their head when they take you up on it, you are the bad guy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- getcrunk 2y ago
  Matt being a poor steward of gpl is by definition not a systemic issue … unless ur claim is that many people in positions like him do what he does which is in turn caused by invariant factors? The systemic issue is companies the world over not giving their fair share back in terms of contributing to foss. I might agree with most of your points, I’m just trying to get people to realize there’s the local issue of Matt/wp and then there’s this global issue of companies building businesses off foss and not giving back.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > unless ur claim is that many people in positions like him do what he does which is in turn caused by invariant factors? I don't know about invariants, but there is absolutely a trend of for-profit companies setting up a business around open source and only later trying to close the doors to lock out the competitors that the Free Software system is explicitly designed to encourage. > this global issue of companies building businesses off foss and not giving back. I'll never understand this complaint about not giving back. I can understand if they're asking for free support and coercing you into saying yes, but that's rarely the concern, the concern is always "giving back". If you release it under GPL, then companies are obliged to abide by the GPL and release their modifications, nothing more or less. If you release it under a less restrictive license then they have no obligations at all, and you presumably chose that license specifically because it made the software easier to use in enterprises. If giving back matters so very much then you're not really interested in Free Software and you should put those requirements in the license. But you don't get to piggyback on the FOSS movement and then complain when people use your software freely to compete with your for profit.
    - getcrunk 2y ago
      As for the trend of the bait and switch. That’s a fair point. But u can always fork and move on. And even then would you say that’s more of an issue or occurs more frequently then corps not contributing back at all? Like when you factor in all the negative externalities what is worse? As for the license, yea I mean that’s kind of the direction I want people to talk about. We have foss absolutists, but there’s these emerging systemic issues now for a few decades and I think that the literalism surrounding the foss principles needs to address it more fundamentally then saying go non free. The dichotomy is not effective anymore when there is so much bad faith.
usea 2y ago
> There is a social contract that people should contribute back No there isn't. The author gets to decide the contract, not you or anyone else. I am the one who decides how to license my software. If I don't want to require my users to contribute, I don't have to. If I wanted to include such an obligation, I would have. You don't get to hold users of my projects to unwritten, made-up obligations. You don't get to bully people online who aren't following your imaginary rules. My users and I have a contract. We both agreed to it. You don't get to step in between us and alter the agreement we made. How dare you. The assertion that users must contribute to open source projects despite the license, is an attack on users, developers, and a just and free society. Developers must be able to license their software how they see fit. You want to take that freedom away from me, in the pursuit of hurting people you don't like.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Agreed. I’ve released software under GPL, MIT, and Apache2 at different times and for different reasons. No one owes me a thing other than what those licenses say they do. Morally, if someone gets rich off my code, it’d be awfully nice if they send some love and cash my way. That would be nice and honorable. They’re not obligated to, though.
gitaarik 2y ago
I don't understand, many people built software on top of Linux, and Torvalds doesn't do crusades against organisations that build on top of it, make money from it and don't contribute anything back to Linux. How is this situation different?

gjsman-1000 2y ago

I’m with DHH. The license is the license. The moment there’s unwritten obligations, the movement will implode - simply because unwritten obligations are always up to interpretation. Don’t like the status quo? Use a different license. This is especially true of WordPress, considering it’s an unlicensed fork of an earlier project itself.

lolinder 2y ago

> No one dares address the systemic issue of for profit corporations exploitatively (ab)using open source software. Calling out Matt and Automattic for their abusive behavior is addressing the systemic issue of for-profit corporations exploitatively abusing open source software. We're talking about a company that released GPL software, waited a decade for another company to build their entire business around said GPL software, and then came at them with threats of going to "nuclear war" (their words) with them if they didn't agree to extremely exploitative terms on top of the GPL licensing under which the software was released. That is the affront to Free Software that's happening here. WP Engine may or may not be a good company, but it is Matt who has given up on freedom. If you lure people in with a promise of Free Software and then hold a gun to their head when they take you up on it, you are the bad guy.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
getcrunk 2y ago
Matt being a poor steward of gpl is by definition not a systemic issue … unless ur claim is that many people in positions like him do what he does which is in turn caused by invariant factors? The systemic issue is companies the world over not giving their fair share back in terms of contributing to foss. I might agree with most of your points, I’m just trying to get people to realize there’s the local issue of Matt/wp and then there’s this global issue of companies building businesses off foss and not giving back.
- lolinder 2y ago
  > unless ur claim is that many people in positions like him do what he does which is in turn caused by invariant factors? I don't know about invariants, but there is absolutely a trend of for-profit companies setting up a business around open source and only later trying to close the doors to lock out the competitors that the Free Software system is explicitly designed to encourage. > this global issue of companies building businesses off foss and not giving back. I'll never understand this complaint about not giving back. I can understand if they're asking for free support and coercing you into saying yes, but that's rarely the concern, the concern is always "giving back". If you release it under GPL, then companies are obliged to abide by the GPL and release their modifications, nothing more or less. If you release it under a less restrictive license then they have no obligations at all, and you presumably chose that license specifically because it made the software easier to use in enterprises. If giving back matters so very much then you're not really interested in Free Software and you should put those requirements in the license. But you don't get to piggyback on the FOSS movement and then complain when people use your software freely to compete with your for profit.
  - getcrunk 2y ago
    As for the trend of the bait and switch. That’s a fair point. But u can always fork and move on. And even then would you say that’s more of an issue or occurs more frequently then corps not contributing back at all? Like when you factor in all the negative externalities what is worse? As for the license, yea I mean that’s kind of the direction I want people to talk about. We have foss absolutists, but there’s these emerging systemic issues now for a few decades and I think that the literalism surrounding the foss principles needs to address it more fundamentally then saying go non free. The dichotomy is not effective anymore when there is so much bad faith.

usea 2y ago

> There is a social contract that people should contribute back No there isn't. The author gets to decide the contract, not you or anyone else. I am the one who decides how to license my software. If I don't want to require my users to contribute, I don't have to. If I wanted to include such an obligation, I would have. You don't get to hold users of my projects to unwritten, made-up obligations. You don't get to bully people online who aren't following your imaginary rules. My users and I have a contract. We both agreed to it. You don't get to step in between us and alter the agreement we made. How dare you. The assertion that users must contribute to open source projects despite the license, is an attack on users, developers, and a just and free society. Developers must be able to license their software how they see fit. You want to take that freedom away from me, in the pursuit of hurting people you don't like.

kstrauser 2y ago
Agreed. I’ve released software under GPL, MIT, and Apache2 at different times and for different reasons. No one owes me a thing other than what those licenses say they do. Morally, if someone gets rich off my code, it’d be awfully nice if they send some love and cash my way. That would be nice and honorable. They’re not obligated to, though.

gitaarik 2y ago

I don't understand, many people built software on top of Linux, and Torvalds doesn't do crusades against organisations that build on top of it, make money from it and don't contribute anything back to Linux. How is this situation different?