this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
33 points (100.0% liked)
Free and Open Source Software
17934 readers
74 users here now
If it's free and open source and it's also software, it can be discussed here. Subcommunity of Technology.
This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
For those out of the loop:
There's WordPress (the non-profit and open-source software), and Automattic (which runs for-profit companies like a paid WordPress, Tumblr, Gravitar, etc).
Automattic (Matt's company) pays their devs to support the open-source software.
Lots of companies sell WordPress hosting.
Matt is calling out WP Engine for not just using WordPress without a lot of contribution back to the open-source software, but also selling a chopped up experience.
The metaphor would be: imagine if a company selling tablets contained VLC, bragged about all the movies you can watch, gives back very little to VLC, and you can't use the playlist feature.
Also, not trying to shit on WP Engine. This is the post everyone should get to see.
https://www.briancoords.com/the-wcus-closing-i-wish-wed-had/
There's no expectation to contribute back when you use FOSS software, that makes no sense. I'm running Linux on like 10 devices and I've never merged anything in the kernel.
Technically true, but FOSS isn't "free" in the sense that someone is contributing labor to build and maintain the software. Free to use, but not free to make. I personally wouldn't expect or shame a person for using FOSS without contributing. But if you make a profitable business off a FOSS project, it seems reasonable to expect some form of contribution back to the project - not because it is technically required, but because who better to sponsor a project than someone profiting from it?
I mean, it's the smart thing to do (even from a purely selfish perspective where you want to make sure the project continues to go into the development direction that keeps making you money), but it's not something that's actionable in court or anything like that.
Exactly.
The reason most companies decide to contribute to FOSS is because it's a lot more efficient to fix bugs and add/influence features upstream than to do it at your end of the code independently of everybody else.
That depends on the license.
I have to keep track of our FOSS licenses at my job, and we have to avoid certain tools that feature licenses that do actually require upstream contribs. They usually only specify this as a req for commercial use of the tool, as a way to prevent someone taking the FOSS tool, adding new functions, profiting off the free work, and giving nothing back.
The Reciprocal Public License is one example.
Okay, so, FOSS.
If WordPress doesn't want WP Engine doing what it's doing, they need to change their license. It's not "Free Open Source Software Until Something We Don't Like Happens."
Apparently, it isn’t about FOSS. It’s about trademark infringement.
The software is free, but it looks like the trademark is not. So WordPress bans WP engine from some WordPress stuff b/c they aren’t technically WordPress. In other words, they’re free to use (and change) the software, but they can’t (or, rather, shouldn’t) use the name—according to WordPress. WP sues for usage anyway after they are barred from some event or something, but now WordPress is suing back, turning an unofficial dispute to a legal one.
Similarly to Nextcloud. If you host an instance and remove preinstalled apps, you are obliged to also remove the Nextcloud branding.
Isn't WordPress.com (not .org) also a crappy, overpriced experience, but maybe just in other areas, that misleads potential WordPress self-hosters exponentially more? Anyways, https://kbin.melroy.org/m/technology@lemmy.world/t/475230/WPEngine-is-suing-Matt-Mullenweg-Automattic-and-the-WordPress-foundation has a pretty good summary of the C&D.