3 ms·
> I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty 1) This is a preliminary injunction, not a decisio
by duskwuff 2y ago
> I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty
1) This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision. An injunction which resets a situation to the former status quo pending a decision isn't all that unusual.
2) I don't think the issue here is so much a "warranty" as much as that Automattic (et al) set out to discriminate against WPEngine to obtain a business advantage. If Automattic wanted to shut down the WordPress plugin repository entirely, they'd be within their rights to do so. (It'd be business suicide, of course - but the point is that they could.)
- sidewndr46 2y agoGiven that OSS litigation typically spans decades an injunction might as well be a decision
- lolinder 2y agoFor the purpose of preventing action by the defendant, yes. For the purpose of setting binding precedent that affects the outcomes of other lawsuits, not at all.
- duskwuff 2y agoThe open source nature of WordPress is largely irrelevant to this case. Neither party is contesting the copyright status of WordPress or its plugins.