6 ms·

After reading all these comments, I started to worry and even panic because it seemed to me that I was on the wrong side. HN, which side are we on?

Sebb767 2y ago
This is a faceted issue where both sides have valid points. Also, HN is not a single entity.
- thanksgiving 2y ago
  Personally, I am now clear that both sides, matt and wp engine are wrong. Matt is more wrong than wp engine but that doesn't mean wp engine is right. This is just my personal opinion.
  - kemayo 2y ago
    I think it's that WP Engine might arguably have been being a jerk, albeit in a way completely allowed by WordPress' licensing and directed entirely at extracting some benefit specifically from Automattic's work. ...whereas Matt's being a jerk in a way that involves collateral for the general community of people who use WordPress. So everyone is more concerned about him, because he's threatening a lot more people.
ChocolateGod 2y ago
It's possible to agree with both stances that WPEngine gets a free ride on a bunch of volunteers and that Matt's behaviour is disgusting
conartist6 2y ago
It couldn't matter less whose "side" you are on is kind of the point. You could like Matt and think he's basically right about freeloaders, yet you would still be horrified and absolutely powerless as you watch him shred his once-whole community into halves, then quarters, then eighths as he doubles down and doubles down some more...
poisonborz 2y ago
I think views are mostly uniform around here. Matt had a few valid points but they are overall meritless. WPE would have been nice to contribute more, but they are absolutely not required to. Rug-pulling an open-source project and making defamation like this is a very dangerous example, and as we will see, also illegal. Would be interested in your arguments, I haven't read much if any in his support.
- belorn 2y ago
  Does google just have that much better lawyers that they can get away with Rug-pulling products and services? I know several examples, from youtube plugins to search optimization, that had their company being pulled from existence because google decided to remove or change their free services or api's. The google graveyard sits alongside a much larger graveyard of companies who got caught when the rug was pulled.
  - nolok 2y ago
    It doesn't need that much better lawyer to begin with. You just can't come out an say straight up "I'm doing this specifically to screw company X", which is what Matt did, essentially. Eg Apple is kinda screwing with Spotify and claim it's their general rules, and it's a long complicated case. But if Apple came out and said "yeah, we do this specifically because we don't like Spotify and to hurt them in particular", that case would be open and shut. That's why it's so obvious Matt is not listening to the lawyers. Everything in this case is because he said it, putting it in writing when no one asked him to.
    - belorn 2y ago
      That is a much better description than practically every other take I have seen on this issue. The legal issue is not about removing access, pulling the rug, or changing policy. It is all about the intention and making public statements. If they wanted to legally stop WPE from accessing their servers then adding a policy to the effect of limiting how much traffic a single company is allowed to do without a explicit contract would do that. Many companies has similar conditions added to their TOS at some point after an unconditional free-for-all. They might want to allow small companies to continue use their service for free, but start demanding payment from large companies who can afford to pay and who also have real impact on server and network costs. They don't explicitly write who those large companies are.
jcarrano 2y ago
If you run a business on open source, you have to expect that some actors will contribute less than you would like. It is the price to pay for the advantages open source provides (contributions, widespread adoption etc). The matter is that this "freeloading" is subjective as the GPL license does not really place any contribution requirements. Matt says it is about trademarks but the court stated TMs were not violated either. Dura lex sed lex, he will have to deal with it.
nperez 2y ago
The preamble of the GPLV2 begins with: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. " I don't think Matt should ever be required to provide the live services of wordpress.org, but as for WP Engine, the license is supposed to be free for them and that's pretty clear.
- claudiulodro 2y ago
  That's Matt's whole argument, no? That anyone can grab it from e.g. Github, but he's not compelled to provide access to the wordpress.org servers or the WordPress trademarks under the GPL.
  - nperez 2y ago
    Not a lawyer but my opinion is the law shouldn't be used to compel anyone to provide unpaid services. With that said, I still think it's terrible for the community. If other package repositories like npm, PyPI, and others decided to randomly block people over grudges, it would create a lot of dysfunction. The consequences should come in the form of Matt no longer being reputable as a provider of services to the community

Sebb767 2y ago

This is a faceted issue where both sides have valid points. Also, HN is not a single entity.

thanksgiving 2y ago
Personally, I am now clear that both sides, matt and wp engine are wrong. Matt is more wrong than wp engine but that doesn't mean wp engine is right. This is just my personal opinion.
- kemayo 2y ago
  I think it's that WP Engine might arguably have been being a jerk, albeit in a way completely allowed by WordPress' licensing and directed entirely at extracting some benefit specifically from Automattic's work. ...whereas Matt's being a jerk in a way that involves collateral for the general community of people who use WordPress. So everyone is more concerned about him, because he's threatening a lot more people.

ChocolateGod 2y ago

It's possible to agree with both stances that WPEngine gets a free ride on a bunch of volunteers and that Matt's behaviour is disgusting

conartist6 2y ago

It couldn't matter less whose "side" you are on is kind of the point. You could like Matt and think he's basically right about freeloaders, yet you would still be horrified and absolutely powerless as you watch him shred his once-whole community into halves, then quarters, then eighths as he doubles down and doubles down some more...

poisonborz 2y ago

I think views are mostly uniform around here. Matt had a few valid points but they are overall meritless. WPE would have been nice to contribute more, but they are absolutely not required to. Rug-pulling an open-source project and making defamation like this is a very dangerous example, and as we will see, also illegal. Would be interested in your arguments, I haven't read much if any in his support.

belorn 2y ago
Does google just have that much better lawyers that they can get away with Rug-pulling products and services? I know several examples, from youtube plugins to search optimization, that had their company being pulled from existence because google decided to remove or change their free services or api's. The google graveyard sits alongside a much larger graveyard of companies who got caught when the rug was pulled.
- nolok 2y ago
  It doesn't need that much better lawyer to begin with. You just can't come out an say straight up "I'm doing this specifically to screw company X", which is what Matt did, essentially. Eg Apple is kinda screwing with Spotify and claim it's their general rules, and it's a long complicated case. But if Apple came out and said "yeah, we do this specifically because we don't like Spotify and to hurt them in particular", that case would be open and shut. That's why it's so obvious Matt is not listening to the lawyers. Everything in this case is because he said it, putting it in writing when no one asked him to.
  - belorn 2y ago
    That is a much better description than practically every other take I have seen on this issue. The legal issue is not about removing access, pulling the rug, or changing policy. It is all about the intention and making public statements. If they wanted to legally stop WPE from accessing their servers then adding a policy to the effect of limiting how much traffic a single company is allowed to do without a explicit contract would do that. Many companies has similar conditions added to their TOS at some point after an unconditional free-for-all. They might want to allow small companies to continue use their service for free, but start demanding payment from large companies who can afford to pay and who also have real impact on server and network costs. They don't explicitly write who those large companies are.

jcarrano 2y ago

If you run a business on open source, you have to expect that some actors will contribute less than you would like. It is the price to pay for the advantages open source provides (contributions, widespread adoption etc). The matter is that this "freeloading" is subjective as the GPL license does not really place any contribution requirements. Matt says it is about trademarks but the court stated TMs were not violated either. Dura lex sed lex, he will have to deal with it.

nperez 2y ago

The preamble of the GPLV2 begins with: "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. " I don't think Matt should ever be required to provide the live services of wordpress.org, but as for WP Engine, the license is supposed to be free for them and that's pretty clear.

claudiulodro 2y ago
That's Matt's whole argument, no? That anyone can grab it from e.g. Github, but he's not compelled to provide access to the wordpress.org servers or the WordPress trademarks under the GPL.
- nperez 2y ago
  Not a lawyer but my opinion is the law shouldn't be used to compel anyone to provide unpaid services. With that said, I still think it's terrible for the community. If other package repositories like npm, PyPI, and others decided to randomly block people over grudges, it would create a lot of dysfunction. The consequences should come in the form of Matt no longer being reputable as a provider of services to the community