6 ms·

You're citing Matt but Matt has been proven to be untrustworthy. For example, his claim of many year long negotiations includes a claim that he had delivered a

You're citing Matt but Matt has been proven to be untrustworthy. For example, his claim of many year long negotiations includes a claim that he had delivered a term sheet to WP Engine in May, but that claim was disproven by himself, no such term sheet was delivered. Additionally, the contributions that he counts from WP Engine are only those included in the "Five for the Future" program which Matt administrates. The actual contributions of WP Engine to the ecosystem include millions of dollars per year on event sponsorship, plugin development (WPGraphQL, ACF) and more. Read the lawsuit filed by WP Engine. No such negotiations existed. Matt has been arguing with WP Engine in his head. You may believe WP Engine's contributions to WordPress are disproportionately small for their size but make that argument on the basis of accurate information, not the fiction from Matt. Nobody likes WP Engine but Matt's lying has been so problematic that it is impossible to take his side unless you believe that integrity is optional.

shprd 2y ago
> millions of dollars per year on event sponsorship Are you for real? Event sponsorship is part of the marketing budget. They're there to promote their company among competitors. It's a universal business expense. > plugin development ACF ACF is their own asset I mentioned this in my comment, they don't contribute significantly beyond their mouth. What you came with are just the receipts for what I said.
- _fjg8 2y ago
  And Automattic's control over WordPress is part of their "marketing" budget. Let's not forget how valuable the exclusive commercial license for the WordPress trademark is to Automattic, their ability to use the WordPress.com domain has huge commercial value to them. I have no doubt that WP Engine would pay tens of millions of dollars per year for the exclusive commercial license to the WordPress trademark which is tens of millions that could be funnelled to the WordPress Foundation, which is tens of millions more than Automattic spend. Ask yourself how Matt justifies Automattic spending millions of dollars per year on hosting WordPress.org and millions of dollars on the 100+ staff Automattic have working on WordPress.org. We can't pick and choose which contributions are valid and which aren't. WP Engine spend money on the development of WPGraphQL a free plugin, WP Engine spend money on the development of Advanced Custom Fields which they release for free for millions of WordPress sites to use... of course they're not doing that out of some altruistic moral crusade, of course it's a clear calculus about the benefit to their bottom line, but that doesn't change that they're contributing. The "Five for the Future" contributions are specifically about contributing to WordPress Core, which is owned and controlled by Matt Mullenweg: you're playing into Matt's absurd narrative that the only valid contribution is one that is made to something under Matt's control. I think WP Engine are Private Equity leeches, I have zero doubt about that, I wish that they were to contribute more but that's the deal with Open Source software, that's what we choose to allow by releasing Open Source software. The moral obligation we have when we use Open Source software is to respect the license, Matt had the choice about the license to release WordPress under, he made the choice for it to be GPL. dhh is more eloquent and authoritative than I, read these if you need further convincing: https://world.hey.com/dhh/automattic-is-doing-open-source-dirty-b95cf128 https://world.hey.com/dhh/automattic-is-doing-open-source-di... https://world.hey.com/dhh/open-source-royalty-and-mad-kings-a8f79d16 https://world.hey.com/dhh/open-source-royalty-and-mad-kings-...
  - shprd 2y ago
    > The "Five for the Future" contributions are specifically about contributing to WordPress Core, which is owned and controlled by Matt Mullenweg And? It is the backbone that powers their entire business. You're acting like they're being asked to contribute to something they don't use. That should be the bare minimum. Even business wise it make sense to contribute to it and help make it better. It's absurd we're even having this discussion. You're also inconsistent. You claim something is fine because it's legal (the license doesn't ask for more as a condition) but you condemn the other party reaction on a different grounds? I thought everything you can get away with, legally, is OK. Matt has barely scratched the surface of what's within his power to do in response.
    - aimazon 2y ago
      WP Engine are a Private Equity owned for-profit corporation who exist solely to hoover up as much revenue as possible, consequence be damned, that's Private Equity. Matt Mullenweg is an individual who professes to be an open-source software for-the-greater-good moral crusader. I hold them to very different standards. Matt has to behave according to his professed principles otherwise they're not his principles, they're just a mask. I release Open Source software under a permissive license: if I leverage my control over that software to harm the consumers of my software that I believe are taking without giving, then I am far worse than a leech. Regarding "WordPress Core": if WordPress Core is all that matters, why are plugins fundamental to WordPress? Why do millions of WordPress websites use Advanced Custom Fields? You've repeated a bunch of Matt's lies, either you're uninformed or not impartial. The latter cannot be addressed, the former can. Read more, speak less.
      - shprd 2y ago
        > I hold them to very different standards It's foolish to support a private equity against the guy because you hold him to a higher standards. It doesn't even make sense. But this discussion is unlikely to lead anywhere.
        2y ago
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  You don't see the non-premium version of ACF as contributing? I'm curious, why not? WPE has other employees dedicated to WP and The Community. I'm not defending WPE but just because they don't contribute in a way MM wants doesn't mean they don't contribute. Suggesting they're not contributing is disingenuous. Matt is not a dictator. Oh wait, scratch that. p.s. Matt should be careful what he wishes for. If WPE or anyone contributes they're going to want a voice, a seat at the table. Is Matt willing to share control? If the answer is no, then that is the root problem here.
  - shprd 2y ago
    > Suggesting they're not contributing is disingenuous. Where did I say they don't contribute? I said they don't contribute beyond their mouth > You don't see the non-premium version of ACF as contributing? It's a marketing strategy, first and foremost. If they didn't offer it, an alternative would come along and attract the crowd. You know what's disingenuous? Claiming it's a contribution when you're doing it as marketing strategy or as part of sales funnel. You can't cash a check twice.
    - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
      So if I go successfully make a feature addition to ie Kubernetes, or the Linux kernel, and it is exclusively motivated by furthering my business needs instead of altruism, but happens to incidentally benefit others too - do you consider that a "contribution" under your mental model? If not, what's the distinction?
      - shprd 2y ago
        > make a feature addition to ie Kubernetes, or the Linux kernel In your example, you're contributing to other people projects so yes it would be contribution right of the bat. That's completely different than the case with ACF.
        mtndew4brkfst 2y ago

shprd 2y ago

> millions of dollars per year on event sponsorship Are you for real? Event sponsorship is part of the marketing budget. They're there to promote their company among competitors. It's a universal business expense. > plugin development ACF ACF is their own asset I mentioned this in my comment, they don't contribute significantly beyond their mouth. What you came with are just the receipts for what I said.

_fjg8 2y ago
And Automattic's control over WordPress is part of their "marketing" budget. Let's not forget how valuable the exclusive commercial license for the WordPress trademark is to Automattic, their ability to use the WordPress.com domain has huge commercial value to them. I have no doubt that WP Engine would pay tens of millions of dollars per year for the exclusive commercial license to the WordPress trademark which is tens of millions that could be funnelled to the WordPress Foundation, which is tens of millions more than Automattic spend. Ask yourself how Matt justifies Automattic spending millions of dollars per year on hosting WordPress.org and millions of dollars on the 100+ staff Automattic have working on WordPress.org. We can't pick and choose which contributions are valid and which aren't. WP Engine spend money on the development of WPGraphQL a free plugin, WP Engine spend money on the development of Advanced Custom Fields which they release for free for millions of WordPress sites to use... of course they're not doing that out of some altruistic moral crusade, of course it's a clear calculus about the benefit to their bottom line, but that doesn't change that they're contributing. The "Five for the Future" contributions are specifically about contributing to WordPress Core, which is owned and controlled by Matt Mullenweg: you're playing into Matt's absurd narrative that the only valid contribution is one that is made to something under Matt's control. I think WP Engine are Private Equity leeches, I have zero doubt about that, I wish that they were to contribute more but that's the deal with Open Source software, that's what we choose to allow by releasing Open Source software. The moral obligation we have when we use Open Source software is to respect the license, Matt had the choice about the license to release WordPress under, he made the choice for it to be GPL. dhh is more eloquent and authoritative than I, read these if you need further convincing: https://world.hey.com/dhh/automattic-is-doing-open-source-dirty-b95cf128 https://world.hey.com/dhh/automattic-is-doing-open-source-di... https://world.hey.com/dhh/open-source-royalty-and-mad-kings-a8f79d16 https://world.hey.com/dhh/open-source-royalty-and-mad-kings-...
- shprd 2y ago
  > The "Five for the Future" contributions are specifically about contributing to WordPress Core, which is owned and controlled by Matt Mullenweg And? It is the backbone that powers their entire business. You're acting like they're being asked to contribute to something they don't use. That should be the bare minimum. Even business wise it make sense to contribute to it and help make it better. It's absurd we're even having this discussion. You're also inconsistent. You claim something is fine because it's legal (the license doesn't ask for more as a condition) but you condemn the other party reaction on a different grounds? I thought everything you can get away with, legally, is OK. Matt has barely scratched the surface of what's within his power to do in response.
  - aimazon 2y ago
    WP Engine are a Private Equity owned for-profit corporation who exist solely to hoover up as much revenue as possible, consequence be damned, that's Private Equity. Matt Mullenweg is an individual who professes to be an open-source software for-the-greater-good moral crusader. I hold them to very different standards. Matt has to behave according to his professed principles otherwise they're not his principles, they're just a mask. I release Open Source software under a permissive license: if I leverage my control over that software to harm the consumers of my software that I believe are taking without giving, then I am far worse than a leech. Regarding "WordPress Core": if WordPress Core is all that matters, why are plugins fundamental to WordPress? Why do millions of WordPress websites use Advanced Custom Fields? You've repeated a bunch of Matt's lies, either you're uninformed or not impartial. The latter cannot be addressed, the former can. Read more, speak less.
    - shprd 2y ago
      > I hold them to very different standards It's foolish to support a private equity against the guy because you hold him to a higher standards. It doesn't even make sense. But this discussion is unlikely to lead anywhere.
      - 2y ago
chiefalchemist 2y ago
You don't see the non-premium version of ACF as contributing? I'm curious, why not? WPE has other employees dedicated to WP and The Community. I'm not defending WPE but just because they don't contribute in a way MM wants doesn't mean they don't contribute. Suggesting they're not contributing is disingenuous. Matt is not a dictator. Oh wait, scratch that. p.s. Matt should be careful what he wishes for. If WPE or anyone contributes they're going to want a voice, a seat at the table. Is Matt willing to share control? If the answer is no, then that is the root problem here.
- shprd 2y ago
  > Suggesting they're not contributing is disingenuous. Where did I say they don't contribute? I said they don't contribute beyond their mouth > You don't see the non-premium version of ACF as contributing? It's a marketing strategy, first and foremost. If they didn't offer it, an alternative would come along and attract the crowd. You know what's disingenuous? Claiming it's a contribution when you're doing it as marketing strategy or as part of sales funnel. You can't cash a check twice.
  - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago
    So if I go successfully make a feature addition to ie Kubernetes, or the Linux kernel, and it is exclusively motivated by furthering my business needs instead of altruism, but happens to incidentally benefit others too - do you consider that a "contribution" under your mental model? If not, what's the distinction?
    - shprd 2y ago
      > make a feature addition to ie Kubernetes, or the Linux kernel In your example, you're contributing to other people projects so yes it would be contribution right of the bat. That's completely different than the case with ACF.
      - mtndew4brkfst 2y ago