4 ms·

My personal take on this has to do entirely with how the decision to block WP Engine access to WordPress.org, unless they were willing to pay for it, was arrive

My personal take on this has to do entirely with how the decision to block WP Engine access to WordPress.org, unless they were willing to pay for it, was arrived at. And this is a critical detail that I'm fuzzy on. If anyone has context (even links with further info) I'd be very much appreciative. I have since read the WP Engine complaint. I understand what they are alleging. I'm just not 100% clear on the nitty and gritty details that led there. All I know are the high level about WP Foundation demanding payment from WP Engine. As a matter of principle, I believe very strongly that a creator has the right to set the conditions upon which their creations are disposed of, and that no one is entitled to services provided by others free of charge in perpetuity. If it is the case that WP Engine was costing WordPress.org a lot of money and that they were the single largest consumer of WordPress.org's web services, then I don't think it is unreasonable for WordPress.org to say "Hey, this is not financially viable for us, we think we're going to need either ask that you setup local mirrors, or we can maybe arrange a pay as you go deal." I hear a lot of people express the opinion that Matt seems unhinged and is trying to "extort" money from WP Engine. But without knowing more that seems, to me, like looters and moochers demanding that other people pay out of pocket for things they want or need. I want there to be more to the story than that. And for what it's worth I have little difficulty believing that Matt just went about things in all the wrong ways and could have worked things out without resorts to litigation if he wasn't such a jerk about it. But being a jerk isn't a crime and doesn't forfeit your rights. WordPress.org has to pay for their servers and WP Engine is a for-profit company that is using WordPress.org's services, free of charge, for their own gain. Mutual consideration here seems warranted. So what, specifically, led to WP Foundation choosing to ask WP Engine to pay for the services they are using? I've heard accusations that there has been a feud between the two going back years but if those finer details are buried in that story, then why is Matt / WP Foundation acting unfairly by asking for payment? (Before anyone responds, I understand the Promissory Estoppel theory that forms the legal complaint, I'm asking specifically about peoples' understanding, even if speculative, regarding Matt's motivations).

ethbr1 2y ago
Differentiating IP/copyright/code rights and infrastructure hosting is definitely an important aspect of the feud. In a perfect world, open source projects would never use private infrastructure (and would certainly not privilege any particular private infrastructure!). That said, the ability to 'open source' infrastructure (read: have hosting provided by a non-profit or similar attached to the open source project) has always been more difficult (financially, legally, and practically) than simply commiting a license file.
moshegramovsky 2y ago
Well said. I think Matt Mullenweg has every right to take the action he's taking. It really seems like many companies are perfectly happy to exploit open source products. In this case, it seems like one company makes a lot of money using the Wordpress codebase and doesn't want to make equal contributions. Then they use the money they're making to turn around and sue Wordpress for standing up for themselves. If I were Matt Mullenweg, you can bet I would be incensed! I'm honestly very surprised that Matt Mullenweg is facing such criticism when he's simply trying to protect IP that he and the community have spent a lot of time and money building together. It's only natural to want to ban the freeloaders, and in any case, it's a little outrageous to think anyone is entitled to access to the resources and creations of others with or without compensation.
- seriocomic 2y ago
  I don't think there's any disagreement about that particular aspect of what kicked this all off (in terms of being incensed about an imbalance of contributions to money being made) - it's the _way_ he went about that, _then_ all the subsequent WPDrama that unfolded (personal attacks, unilateral cancellations, removals, blockages, deletions etc) that has most people concerned. I've been around WordPress since 2003 (since the fork from B2/Cafelog) and have watched Matt evolve over that time, make a few missteps, act/react with humility, speak conscientiously on a wide range of matters and issues. The actions of the past 12 months seem quite contrary to that established behaviour (speaking from a far perspective & never had met the man in person). I feel sad whether this is a deliberate or unintentional (mental) path, but am confident that like the drama that created WP's popularity orignally (MoveableType), there will be a path forward for the community - it's the damage that will be done in getting there that's upsetting...
- jalapenos 2y ago
  I don't think many people have issue with his original complaints. They're responding to the absurd way he's behaved. There's a right way and a wrong way to handle a conflict, and he's taken a direct route down the wrong way with his foot on the gas. He would've been wise to read Sun Tzu, 48 laws, all those books on the basics of manoeuvring in a conflict, and found himself some wise and steady council to guide him through this effectively. Instead he basically burst into a sustained petulant childish tantrum. He was doing things that basically any adult would know not to do. He was in here, running his mouth in the comments section after legal proceedings had started. With everyone telling him to shut up. And instead he just kept going. And the comments literally then showed up in the legal proceedings against him, as everyone had warned. Rights and obligations go hand in hand. Yes he had rights, and yes he could have exercised them to the benefit of the open source community (which was extremely important given WPs role in the internet - effectively carrying the beacon of the original internet vs its consumption by big companies). But he also had obligations stemming from that. He should have played this diligently and carefully. But he didn't. And thus everyone expresses their disappointment in their own ways.
jcranmer 2y ago
WordPress is an open source project, and part of being an open source project is you don't really have a right to demand that people not mooch off of your work, at least as far as most open source licenses are concerned [1]. If you don't like that, well, then open source isn't for you. The other major complication here is that Matt has thoroughly mixed his several roles together, so you have to spend time untangling what is Matt-personally, what is Matt-as-his-company, and what is WordPress-via-Matt. When you untangle that, the core demand appears to be that Matt (in who knows what role) demanded that WP Engine compensate Matt-the-company for its use of WordPress-via-Matt resources being provided by Matt-personally (that no one knew was being provided by Matt-personally as opposed to WordPress-via-Matt). Given the thoroughly tangled mess of that stuff, and the fact that--in the past--Matt made several steps to untangle the ownership of everything, I am not particularly persuaded by the logic of "I'm just trying to get them to pay their fair share," as they're not being asked to pay the people they should be paying. > why is Matt / WP Foundation acting unfairly by asking for payment? Because they're asking someone to pay, not the foundation whose resources they are allegedly using, but their largest competitor (a very distinct legal entity). [1] There are licenses that do have clauses that let you take action, but generally having such a clause makes it not Open Source-compliant, and frequently the relicensing needed to bring the current licenses to that state involves a lot of drama.
- JohnTHaller 2y ago
  WordPress' GPL license guarantees you access to the code and specific rights. It doesn't guarantee you access to the the WordPress database repository of plugins and themes. WordPress could, in theory, make the repository free for access to all except larger hosting entities that put more of a strain on things, for which there is a fee or throttling. Possibly even indicating this within the WordPress admin UI which flavor of access the user is getting. "Pro" vs "Free" for example. Note that I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and this is based on my understanding of open source licenses like the GPL over my 20 years working on PortableApps.com.
  - InsomniacL 2y ago
    w.org infra was said to be owned by the foundation for the community. Automattic's lawyer told the community the same thing. Volunteers built in to WordPress core dependence on W.Org infra on that understanding. there are over 1500 hardcoded references to W.org infra. Now those volunteers find out it's "Matt's personal website" and he can do what he likes with it. Including banning volunteers who's livelihoods depend on it for nothing more than reacting to a post with a disproving emojji.
InsomniacL 2y ago
> But being a jerk isn't a crime and doesn't forfeit your rights. The court case isn't about Matt being a jerk, it's about crime. > WordPress.org has to pay for their servers Wordpress.org was sold to volunteers as a community asset owned by the foundation not Matt and even Matt's lawyer made public statements to that effect. Volunteers spent their time building it up, developing in to WordPress core reliance on w.org infra, etc.. Matt has a long history of un-ethical behaviour, and the current WPDrama is extensive. For me alone, the one screenshot of his threats to go to the press with confidential information about someone unless they did what he wants was enough. Now volunteers find out from court documents that w.org is "Matt's personal website" as he puts it. Additionally, now many volunteers are banned from the thing they helped build simply for voicing disagreement with his actions which are almost universally accepted as unethical. Many have been banned for reacting to one of his post with with disapproving emojji!! Matt has built up the foundation through deception and then weaponised it.
- gspencley 2y ago
  > > But being a jerk isn't a crime and doesn't forfeit your rights. > The court case isn't about Matt being a jerk, it's about crime. If we're going to get that pedantic, and ignore the "spirit" in which that statement of mine was intended, then it's equally fair for me to point out that no, the legal case is not anything to do with a "crime." It is a civil dispute.
  - InsomniacL 2y ago
    > WordPress.org has to pay for their servers and WP Engine is a for-profit company that is using WordPress.org's services, free of charge, for their own gain. Mutual consideration here seems warranted. WPEngine allege > > "As part of the WordPress community, WPE has contributed tens of millions of dollars in ongoing support " > going to get that pedantic I didn't think i was being pedantic, sorry. I don't understand the US Court system but from what i gather, at least Attempted Extortion and breaches of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act are crimes. COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.; (4) Attempted Extortion; (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (6) Promissory Estoppel; (7) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; (8) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Dilution; (9) Libel; (10) Trade Libel; and (11) Slander.
graeme 2y ago
>My personal take on this has to do entirely with how the decision to block WP Engine access to WordPress.org, unless they were willing to pay for it, was arrived at. Matt would be allowed to charge for access to Wordpress.org. It's his property. What you can't do is: make a service publicly available and then threaten a company that it needs exclusive terms In the lawsuit the judge asked Automattic to come up with a price for access to Wp.org and Matt did not provide an estimate. >we think we're going to need either ask that you setup local mirrors, or we can maybe arrange a pay as you go deal. In the lawsuit Automattic asked the judge to force WPengine to shut down their mirrors. They want control over the system. Which is also legit, but legally you can't offer public terms for all and then threaten a company with "the nuclear option" unless they agree to a separate set of terms for 8% of revenue. Wordpress.org could have terms that allow companies to setup mirrors, but they explicitly don't want this, and wordpress.org is hardcoded into Wordpress Core.
- InsomniacL 2y ago
  > In the lawsuit the judge asked Automattic to come up with a price for access to Wp.org and Matt did not provide an estimate. Automattic and Mullenweg argued that WP Engine should be required file a bond of $1.6 million to ensure that they are compensated for potential costs and damages if it’s later found that the preliminary injunction was granted without sufficient basis. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/judge-sides-with-wp-engine-against-automattic-mullenweg-in-wordpress-dispute/535047/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.searchenginejournal.com/judge-sides-with-wp-engi...
  - graeme 2y ago
    That's a separate heading, which the judge rejected completely. From the same article: >WPEngine’s arguments are persuasive. …the Court finds that any harm to Defendants resulting from the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief is unlikely, as it merely requires them to revert to business as usual as of September 20, 2024. Accordingly, the Court declines to require WPEngine to post a bond.”
- elendee 2y ago
  Isn't he within legal rights in fact to take away certain public services whenever he does want? Assuming that's the case (and that is an assumption), the fact that WPEngine went all in on a half billion dollar business model dependent on Matt is a big risk they took; I would think it would be absolutely top priority on their part to understand the nuts and bolts of the ecosystem they depend on.
shkkmo 2y ago
> So what, specifically, led to WP Foundation choosing to ask WP Engine to pay for the services they are using? That isn't what happened. The for-profit company Automatic asked for money, and then used their CEO's exclusive control of the non-profit foundation to punish their direct competitor. It would be an entirely different thing if this was part an initiative to charge commercial users of WordPress.org for the costs they incur the non-profit foundation to stabilize it's funding. Such a thing could have been handled professionally without threats of "nuclear" retaliation. > But being a jerk isn't a crime and doesn't forfeit your rights Being a jerk isn't a crime, but it does broadcast a lack of professionalism and mental stability. Those aren't great traits to see in and individual who has unilateral control over infrastructure that you depend on. Those are extremely concerning traits when that individual has demonstrated a willingness to use that control to pursue personal vendettas in childish ways. The problem the community is facing is that Matt is a weak, single point of failure. To re-establish trust given Matt's actions here, the non-profit needs to no longer be under his control, but under that of an independent board of directors.
- elendee 2y ago
  20 years at the helm and one major conflict over a half billion dollar business doesnt strike me as particularly weak. Personally I would be much happier if he just keeps on keepin on. The BDFL model has a strong precedent for jerk-ness a la Linus Torvalds
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ethbr1 2y ago

Differentiating IP/copyright/code rights and infrastructure hosting is definitely an important aspect of the feud. In a perfect world, open source projects would never use private infrastructure (and would certainly not privilege any particular private infrastructure!). That said, the ability to 'open source' infrastructure (read: have hosting provided by a non-profit or similar attached to the open source project) has always been more difficult (financially, legally, and practically) than simply commiting a license file.

moshegramovsky 2y ago

Well said. I think Matt Mullenweg has every right to take the action he's taking. It really seems like many companies are perfectly happy to exploit open source products. In this case, it seems like one company makes a lot of money using the Wordpress codebase and doesn't want to make equal contributions. Then they use the money they're making to turn around and sue Wordpress for standing up for themselves. If I were Matt Mullenweg, you can bet I would be incensed! I'm honestly very surprised that Matt Mullenweg is facing such criticism when he's simply trying to protect IP that he and the community have spent a lot of time and money building together. It's only natural to want to ban the freeloaders, and in any case, it's a little outrageous to think anyone is entitled to access to the resources and creations of others with or without compensation.

seriocomic 2y ago
I don't think there's any disagreement about that particular aspect of what kicked this all off (in terms of being incensed about an imbalance of contributions to money being made) - it's the _way_ he went about that, _then_ all the subsequent WPDrama that unfolded (personal attacks, unilateral cancellations, removals, blockages, deletions etc) that has most people concerned. I've been around WordPress since 2003 (since the fork from B2/Cafelog) and have watched Matt evolve over that time, make a few missteps, act/react with humility, speak conscientiously on a wide range of matters and issues. The actions of the past 12 months seem quite contrary to that established behaviour (speaking from a far perspective & never had met the man in person). I feel sad whether this is a deliberate or unintentional (mental) path, but am confident that like the drama that created WP's popularity orignally (MoveableType), there will be a path forward for the community - it's the damage that will be done in getting there that's upsetting...
jalapenos 2y ago
I don't think many people have issue with his original complaints. They're responding to the absurd way he's behaved. There's a right way and a wrong way to handle a conflict, and he's taken a direct route down the wrong way with his foot on the gas. He would've been wise to read Sun Tzu, 48 laws, all those books on the basics of manoeuvring in a conflict, and found himself some wise and steady council to guide him through this effectively. Instead he basically burst into a sustained petulant childish tantrum. He was doing things that basically any adult would know not to do. He was in here, running his mouth in the comments section after legal proceedings had started. With everyone telling him to shut up. And instead he just kept going. And the comments literally then showed up in the legal proceedings against him, as everyone had warned. Rights and obligations go hand in hand. Yes he had rights, and yes he could have exercised them to the benefit of the open source community (which was extremely important given WPs role in the internet - effectively carrying the beacon of the original internet vs its consumption by big companies). But he also had obligations stemming from that. He should have played this diligently and carefully. But he didn't. And thus everyone expresses their disappointment in their own ways.

jcranmer 2y ago

WordPress is an open source project, and part of being an open source project is you don't really have a right to demand that people not mooch off of your work, at least as far as most open source licenses are concerned [1]. If you don't like that, well, then open source isn't for you. The other major complication here is that Matt has thoroughly mixed his several roles together, so you have to spend time untangling what is Matt-personally, what is Matt-as-his-company, and what is WordPress-via-Matt. When you untangle that, the core demand appears to be that Matt (in who knows what role) demanded that WP Engine compensate Matt-the-company for its use of WordPress-via-Matt resources being provided by Matt-personally (that no one knew was being provided by Matt-personally as opposed to WordPress-via-Matt). Given the thoroughly tangled mess of that stuff, and the fact that--in the past--Matt made several steps to untangle the ownership of everything, I am not particularly persuaded by the logic of "I'm just trying to get them to pay their fair share," as they're not being asked to pay the people they should be paying. > why is Matt / WP Foundation acting unfairly by asking for payment? Because they're asking someone to pay, not the foundation whose resources they are allegedly using, but their largest competitor (a very distinct legal entity). [1] There are licenses that do have clauses that let you take action, but generally having such a clause makes it not Open Source-compliant, and frequently the relicensing needed to bring the current licenses to that state involves a lot of drama.

JohnTHaller 2y ago
WordPress' GPL license guarantees you access to the code and specific rights. It doesn't guarantee you access to the the WordPress database repository of plugins and themes. WordPress could, in theory, make the repository free for access to all except larger hosting entities that put more of a strain on things, for which there is a fee or throttling. Possibly even indicating this within the WordPress admin UI which flavor of access the user is getting. "Pro" vs "Free" for example. Note that I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and this is based on my understanding of open source licenses like the GPL over my 20 years working on PortableApps.com.
- InsomniacL 2y ago
  w.org infra was said to be owned by the foundation for the community. Automattic's lawyer told the community the same thing. Volunteers built in to WordPress core dependence on W.Org infra on that understanding. there are over 1500 hardcoded references to W.org infra. Now those volunteers find out it's "Matt's personal website" and he can do what he likes with it. Including banning volunteers who's livelihoods depend on it for nothing more than reacting to a post with a disproving emojji.

InsomniacL 2y ago

> But being a jerk isn't a crime and doesn't forfeit your rights. The court case isn't about Matt being a jerk, it's about crime. > WordPress.org has to pay for their servers Wordpress.org was sold to volunteers as a community asset owned by the foundation not Matt and even Matt's lawyer made public statements to that effect. Volunteers spent their time building it up, developing in to WordPress core reliance on w.org infra, etc.. Matt has a long history of un-ethical behaviour, and the current WPDrama is extensive. For me alone, the one screenshot of his threats to go to the press with confidential information about someone unless they did what he wants was enough. Now volunteers find out from court documents that w.org is "Matt's personal website" as he puts it. Additionally, now many volunteers are banned from the thing they helped build simply for voicing disagreement with his actions which are almost universally accepted as unethical. Many have been banned for reacting to one of his post with with disapproving emojji!! Matt has built up the foundation through deception and then weaponised it.

gspencley 2y ago
> > But being a jerk isn't a crime and doesn't forfeit your rights. > The court case isn't about Matt being a jerk, it's about crime. If we're going to get that pedantic, and ignore the "spirit" in which that statement of mine was intended, then it's equally fair for me to point out that no, the legal case is not anything to do with a "crime." It is a civil dispute.
- InsomniacL 2y ago
  > WordPress.org has to pay for their servers and WP Engine is a for-profit company that is using WordPress.org's services, free of charge, for their own gain. Mutual consideration here seems warranted. WPEngine allege > > "As part of the WordPress community, WPE has contributed tens of millions of dollars in ongoing support " > going to get that pedantic I didn't think i was being pedantic, sorry. I don't understand the US Court system but from what i gather, at least Attempted Extortion and breaches of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act are crimes. COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.; (4) Attempted Extortion; (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.; (6) Promissory Estoppel; (7) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; (8) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Dilution; (9) Libel; (10) Trade Libel; and (11) Slander.

graeme 2y ago

>My personal take on this has to do entirely with how the decision to block WP Engine access to WordPress.org, unless they were willing to pay for it, was arrived at. Matt would be allowed to charge for access to Wordpress.org. It's his property. What you can't do is: make a service publicly available and then threaten a company that it needs exclusive terms In the lawsuit the judge asked Automattic to come up with a price for access to Wp.org and Matt did not provide an estimate. >we think we're going to need either ask that you setup local mirrors, or we can maybe arrange a pay as you go deal. In the lawsuit Automattic asked the judge to force WPengine to shut down their mirrors. They want control over the system. Which is also legit, but legally you can't offer public terms for all and then threaten a company with "the nuclear option" unless they agree to a separate set of terms for 8% of revenue. Wordpress.org could have terms that allow companies to setup mirrors, but they explicitly don't want this, and wordpress.org is hardcoded into Wordpress Core.

InsomniacL 2y ago
> In the lawsuit the judge asked Automattic to come up with a price for access to Wp.org and Matt did not provide an estimate. Automattic and Mullenweg argued that WP Engine should be required file a bond of $1.6 million to ensure that they are compensated for potential costs and damages if it’s later found that the preliminary injunction was granted without sufficient basis. https://www.searchenginejournal.com/judge-sides-with-wp-engine-against-automattic-mullenweg-in-wordpress-dispute/535047/?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.searchenginejournal.com/judge-sides-with-wp-engi...
- graeme 2y ago
  That's a separate heading, which the judge rejected completely. From the same article: >WPEngine’s arguments are persuasive. …the Court finds that any harm to Defendants resulting from the issuance of preliminary injunctive relief is unlikely, as it merely requires them to revert to business as usual as of September 20, 2024. Accordingly, the Court declines to require WPEngine to post a bond.”
elendee 2y ago
Isn't he within legal rights in fact to take away certain public services whenever he does want? Assuming that's the case (and that is an assumption), the fact that WPEngine went all in on a half billion dollar business model dependent on Matt is a big risk they took; I would think it would be absolutely top priority on their part to understand the nuts and bolts of the ecosystem they depend on.

shkkmo 2y ago

> So what, specifically, led to WP Foundation choosing to ask WP Engine to pay for the services they are using? That isn't what happened. The for-profit company Automatic asked for money, and then used their CEO's exclusive control of the non-profit foundation to punish their direct competitor. It would be an entirely different thing if this was part an initiative to charge commercial users of WordPress.org for the costs they incur the non-profit foundation to stabilize it's funding. Such a thing could have been handled professionally without threats of "nuclear" retaliation. > But being a jerk isn't a crime and doesn't forfeit your rights Being a jerk isn't a crime, but it does broadcast a lack of professionalism and mental stability. Those aren't great traits to see in and individual who has unilateral control over infrastructure that you depend on. Those are extremely concerning traits when that individual has demonstrated a willingness to use that control to pursue personal vendettas in childish ways. The problem the community is facing is that Matt is a weak, single point of failure. To re-establish trust given Matt's actions here, the non-profit needs to no longer be under his control, but under that of an independent board of directors.

elendee 2y ago
20 years at the helm and one major conflict over a half billion dollar business doesnt strike me as particularly weak. Personally I would be much happier if he just keeps on keepin on. The BDFL model has a strong precedent for jerk-ness a la Linus Torvalds

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]