3 ms·

>Isn't the WPF-Automattic relationship more or less the norm with companies that have 'open-source business models'? No, it's not, and I think that's the crux

>Isn't the WPF-Automattic relationship more or less the norm with companies that have 'open-source business models'? No, it's not, and I think that's the crux of most of the controversy. One quick comparison would be Drupal: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker-problem

nickff 2y ago
I suggested that the WPF-Automattic relationship was “the norm”, and you countered with a post where Drupal describes itself as “unique and groundbreaking within the Open Source community”. While Drupal might be better (or worse), this post doesn’t disagree with my message.
- TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
  It is not the norm. Open source projects sponsored by a commercial organization tied to that project might be nominally controlled by a foundation, but that foundation isn’t effectively controlled by a single person in their private capacity, who has secretly granted the commercial entity an exclusive, irrevocable commercial license. I don’t know if there is past precedent, but it’s certainly not the norm. What would be more normal is a company more or less owning the open source software and simply licensing it under a permissive license and then having a closed source or open core fork. An example there would be any number of Red Hat projects.
- 1shooner 2y ago
  That quote is referring to the credit system, not the relationship between Acquia and the Drupal Association.
- friendzis 2y ago
  It actually does, but in a bit non-obvious way if you have been tricked by Matt's/Automattic's wording. The very core of free software (as in beer, not the fsf definition) is, well, dramatic reduction of cost for customers. Opening the source for modification is merely in expectation that some of the customers would contribute something back. The relationship is highly asymmetrical. Therefore, Takers in Drupal lingo are inherent, consequential part of the deal. Drupal's system just goes one step above in recognizing those who contribute back in a mostly good faith, unbiased effort. The typical business models behind FOSS are professional services (support and training) and commercial extensions (open-core model). In the latter model (or both), the governing body makes the majority of contributions and consequentially (key word) steers the project. For example chromium is the way it is not because Google said it should be that way, but rather they put the effort to implement their wishes. Some FOSS-on-the-surface projects reject contributions that do not align with their commercial vision and even go as far as to chase legal action against forks. Both examples have been discussed in this very forum quite thoroughly. This brings us to the problem with wordpress, wordpress foundation and Matt/Automattic. The governing foundation is generally established so that the major Makers and Takers (remember, entities can exist in Maker-Taker duality) do not go into open warfare and in turn sabotage the whole FOSS project. Wordpress itself is a FOSS project, directly enabling both Automattic and WPE. WPE is a clear Taker here, no objections to this judgement. However, Foundation is for all intents and purposes Matt/Automattic. When Matt and WPE did go into open warfare, this lack of separation between commercial and charitable operations meant that Matt abused his powers over WPF, weaponized it and used it against WPE in Automattic's fight against WPE. This is where WPF-Automattic relationship is totally out of the norm in open-source/open-core business models.

nickff 2y ago

I suggested that the WPF-Automattic relationship was “the norm”, and you countered with a post where Drupal describes itself as “unique and groundbreaking within the Open Source community”. While Drupal might be better (or worse), this post doesn’t disagree with my message.

TheNewsIsHere 2y ago
It is not the norm. Open source projects sponsored by a commercial organization tied to that project might be nominally controlled by a foundation, but that foundation isn’t effectively controlled by a single person in their private capacity, who has secretly granted the commercial entity an exclusive, irrevocable commercial license. I don’t know if there is past precedent, but it’s certainly not the norm. What would be more normal is a company more or less owning the open source software and simply licensing it under a permissive license and then having a closed source or open core fork. An example there would be any number of Red Hat projects.
1shooner 2y ago
That quote is referring to the credit system, not the relationship between Acquia and the Drupal Association.
friendzis 2y ago
It actually does, but in a bit non-obvious way if you have been tricked by Matt's/Automattic's wording. The very core of free software (as in beer, not the fsf definition) is, well, dramatic reduction of cost for customers. Opening the source for modification is merely in expectation that some of the customers would contribute something back. The relationship is highly asymmetrical. Therefore, Takers in Drupal lingo are inherent, consequential part of the deal. Drupal's system just goes one step above in recognizing those who contribute back in a mostly good faith, unbiased effort. The typical business models behind FOSS are professional services (support and training) and commercial extensions (open-core model). In the latter model (or both), the governing body makes the majority of contributions and consequentially (key word) steers the project. For example chromium is the way it is not because Google said it should be that way, but rather they put the effort to implement their wishes. Some FOSS-on-the-surface projects reject contributions that do not align with their commercial vision and even go as far as to chase legal action against forks. Both examples have been discussed in this very forum quite thoroughly. This brings us to the problem with wordpress, wordpress foundation and Matt/Automattic. The governing foundation is generally established so that the major Makers and Takers (remember, entities can exist in Maker-Taker duality) do not go into open warfare and in turn sabotage the whole FOSS project. Wordpress itself is a FOSS project, directly enabling both Automattic and WPE. WPE is a clear Taker here, no objections to this judgement. However, Foundation is for all intents and purposes Matt/Automattic. When Matt and WPE did go into open warfare, this lack of separation between commercial and charitable operations meant that Matt abused his powers over WPF, weaponized it and used it against WPE in Automattic's fight against WPE. This is where WPF-Automattic relationship is totally out of the norm in open-source/open-core business models.