Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

courtlistener.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 212 posts

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#191

Post by whycome »

chris_wot wrote: post #164
kristofferR wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But this wasn't about trying to help someone to be better, it was to help them avoid facing consequences for being bad, like advising a wife beater about concealer options for his wife (overly dramatic example, I know). "You should stop doing dumb/illegal stuff, it might impact you" is very different advice than "You should stop talking about the dumb/illegal stuff you do, they may stop you".

It was probably an error in judgement for me to have advised the man to stop talking.

Or judgment even

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#192

Post by xnx »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #188
xnx wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's hard not to see this as personal, not financial. Despite not needing the money, Matt seemed to be very upset that WPEngine was making money.

What's the common thing people with more than enough money to spend want? "more"

After every possible need is met. Money becomes "points".

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#193

Post by softwaredoug »

snowwrestler wrote: post #60

I hope Matt considers placing all the community resources of Wordpress into the foundation, including Wordpress.org, constituting an actual board, contributing funds, and setting up a governance and contribution system that matches the open ethos of the license and community. I think this is an area that Drupal gets right, and Dries wrote an interesting post about it in October: https://dri.es/solving-the-maker-taker…

Matt honestly seems unaware this is how it’s done in many projects. I even asked him about it and he responded with “when has that ever been successful”

https://x.com/softwaredoug/status/1862510030571860017?mx=2

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#194

Post by josefresco »

jcranmer wrote: post #7

> Here, Mullenweg’s “statement that he had the right to disable WPEngine’s account access and to make changes to the ACF plugin for the sake of public safety[,]” see Opp. at 27-28, is belied by the declarations of WPEngine’s executives stating that the claimed vulnerability was minor [...] @photomatt literally screwed himself over by talking about his actions here, when everyone was screaming at him to shut the fuck…

When does ACF return to WP Engine? Still looks like it's under the control of "WordPress.org" https://wordpress.org/plugins/advanced-custom-fields/

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#195

Post by RegnisGnaw »

josefresco wrote: post #194
jcranmer wrote: post #7

> Here, Mullenweg’s “statement that he had the right to disable WPEngine’s account access and to make changes to the ACF plugin for the sake of public safety[,]” see Opp. at 27-28, is belied by the declarations of WPEngine’s executives stating that the claimed vulnerability was minor [...] @photomatt literally screwed himself over by talking about his actions here, when everyone was screaming at him to shut the fuck…

When does ACF return to WP Engine? Still looks like it's under the control of "WordPress.org" https://wordpress.org/plugins/advanced-custom-fields/

within 72 hours..

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#196

Post by x0x0 »

smsm42 wrote: post #55
minimaxir wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> After this post, I will refrain from personally commenting on the WP Engine case until a judge rules on the injunction. Well, a judge did indeed rule on the injuction. He just retweeted this tweet about the case: https://x.com/brian_essig/status/1866640985842692452 > This is actually bullshit. Agree with him or not, the court is forcing an open source maintainer into providing services to a user. What’s next, a com…

That's not an accurate description. An accurate description is that the court is ordering an open source maintainer to stop treating one particular user in a hostile and exclusionary manner. Now, you can object to that too, but there's a serious difference. It's like fixing a bug, but intentionally excluding some particular user from getting the bug fix - it's not the same as fixing a bug. Fixing a bug anew requires…

Also, promissory estoppel, which an actual attorney explained as such:

Even though you don't have a contract, you make a promise (Matt: wp.org is free forever to anyone), someone (WP Engine) relies on that promise to their detriment, and the plaintiff's reliance on that promise was reasonable. Discussion of promissory estoppel at 44:17 (over the next 3 minutes or so) in [1].

And note that singling out WP Engine for very explicitly a payment is part of the rationale.

Shortly after Mike also discusses the same point made by /u/DannyBee [2], ie that the attorneys seem to be considering this case not in the context of the wordpress business, in which Matt being allowed to say you all have access to the code / updates / plugins at my whim is not great for wordpress the company outside of this narrow cirumstance.

[1] A discussion by attorney Mike Dunford: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdwiZEhRS3o

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42385083

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#197

Post by eqvinox »

minimaxir wrote: post #46
legitster wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ma.tt/2024/10/first-amendment/ The lawyer thing was hilarious. Someone actually claiming to be his lawyer was on the HN threads and anytime he was asked a question the response was a version of "Oh, I hadn't heard about this. I can't answer that."

> After this post, I will refrain from personally commenting on the WP Engine case until a judge rules on the injunction. Well, a judge did indeed rule on the injuction. He just retweeted this tweet about the case: https://x.com/brian_essig/status/1866640985842692452 > This is actually bullshit. Agree with him or not, the court is forcing an open source maintainer into providing services to a user. What’s next, a com…

The court is forcing the operator of wordpress.org into providing services, being an open source maintainer is entirely irrelevant here. This entire thing is closer to app store litigation than anything even vaguely open source.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#198

Post by sundbry »

godzillabrennus wrote: post #185
eXpl0it3r wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see this happening, as it would de-throne Matt and Matt hasn't shown any "remorse", any understanding of him being the issue and that there's a clear conflict of interest. No, in fact he keeps doubling down [1] on claiming that all of his/Automattic's efforts are happening for the good of open source and the community. [1] https://x.com/automattic/status/1866644684057248090

Agreed. Matt thinks he is solely responsible for this cafelog fork taking over so much of the Internet… he needs some humble pie…

Pride cometh before the fall...

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#199

Post by adolph »

HelloNurse wrote: post #182
jtbayly wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> Apologies for this. Not trying to be a grammar nazi You can frame the nitpicking positively: "a good comment like yours deserves good grammar/spelling: I think you meant ..., not ..."

Would you be ok with an addendum to your wise advise?

My spouse indicates that before initiating constructive criticism it is appropriate to inquire if the subject is receptive to such communication.

Re: WPEngine, Inc. vs. Automattic– Order on Motion for Preliminary Injunction

#200

Post by jtbayly »

mikae1 wrote: post #141
jtbayly wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Thanks for correcting. I can be a (non-correcting) grammar nazi in Swedish , so I wholeheartedly accept your critique. I'm not a native English speaker and I tend to make this mistake if I don't think twice. This time I just typed without thinking twice, hence the outcome. This thread derailing into a discussion about my spelling mistake will probably make me think thrice before I write this word the next time. :D

Thanks for satisfying my curiosity and doing so graciously! I also found the discussion of the phonetics of the two words in other comments enlightening.
Post reply on HN