Earlier quoted context omitted.
WordPress cannot relicense; it’s a fork of a GPL project originally (b2) and there is no copyright assignment, so you would need explicit permission from every contributor including the forked project’s.
Well, crap. Thanks for explaining.
WP Engine is not WordPress
151–160 of 175 posts
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, crap. Thanks for explaining.
Further clarification: the project can be relicensed under a compatible license. This approach would mean that new code is released under the new license, such as the AGPL, while the existing code remains under the GPL. It's a little complicated but quite doable.
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#153It looks like people here are missing the context of the source of the issue between Matt and WP engine. Couple days ago he posted on X that wpengine has similar revenue to automattic, yet doesn’t contribute back to open source as much as they promised to (5 hour per week per employee or something like that). A wpengine employee replied to a post saying that management doesn’t allow them to contribute to Wordpress op…
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#154Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
I posted it on Mastodon https://chaos.social/@ChuckMcManis/112429390169387783
I mostly agree with your rant, but I counter your example of sticking $100 bills up in your front yard as "art". There are many people who spend hundreds or thousands (or more) sticking up outrageous displays for halloween or xmas lights in their front yard, expecting no more payoff than watching people be delighted as they pass by. That's a great and admirable motivation. Even if it's largely done just to show Bob d…
As I mentioned to another commenter, FOSS licenses take away (steal) a right that creators have to arbitrate giving away their work. You can write software, keep it licensed, and give 'no cost' licenses to people who just want to use it for their fun stuff, but when someone wants to use it in a product, and it is code they would have had to hire someone to write otherwise, I think it is more reasonable for them to pay the creator the equivalent cost (at least). So if something would take a week to write, what is 40 hrs of wages you would accept to write that code? Let's say its $100/hr that is $4,000. So for a one time payment of $4,000 you can license your code for them to use in their commercial product which will make them, presumably, much much more than $4,000 over its lifetime. But with FOSS licenses, you can't do that. You can sue them (it's expensive) and after suing them the only compensation you can expect is that they publish their source code? Now the FOSS license has stolen not only your creative work, but your time you could have used to write more software, and the monetary expense of hiring lawyers. As a result FOSS authors don't have a lot to gain by suing scofflaws, the scofflaws know that and so they steal the value safe in the knowledge that it will be unlikely to cost them anything.
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#156I have a long rant about how open source is wage theft and value extraction by unscrupulous third parties is built in and unavoidable. But setting that aside, I learned of WP Engine when they launched here, on hacker news. At the time their value proposition was "bullet proof and secure wordpress for people who just want to publish and not learn devops". Over the years, I've watched them through a progression of mana…
> I have a long rant about how open source is wage theft and value extraction by unscrupulous third parties is built in and unavoidable. How can it be wage theft when people voluntarily contribute to it? If you don't want others to use your software, don't write open source software.
You will find these folks want two things; One to generously give away something of value for others to use, and two for nobody to make any money off the thing they gave away.
When people who feel that way find out their software is being sold or otherwise enriching a third party, they feel like their effort has been "stolen."
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#157This is nothing more than commercially focused.
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#158Earlier quoted context omitted.
Further clarification: the project can be relicensed under a compatible license. This approach would mean that new code is released under the new license, such as the AGPL, while the existing code remains under the GPL. It's a little complicated but quite doable.
You need to have a compelling backlog to continue developing down the road or someone can just fork it.
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#159Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automattic's own managed WordPress platform severely restricts features all the way up to the top plan. I guess it's okay for them to do it. edit: I am referring to WordPress.com which is the offering comparable to WP Engine.
Cannot upload own themes or plugins at WordPress.com Also there has been issues for years when trying to move away and transfer __your__ domain to another provider.
You can, just not on the free plan, or the two cheapest paid plans.
Re: WP Engine is not WordPress
#160Matt has chosen to keep Wordpress Opensource, and thanks to him for that. This allowed companies like WPEngine to exist... and focus their resources like marketing and maintaining their internal "fork" rather than contributing to core Open Source Project... and this might be one of the reasons they are getting some good success. Generally trademark is what should offer some protection here and I think this is where O…