Interesting comment from Matt on paid stuff

[Rarst]

Something I wandered on by links from this topic on WP/Microsoft

(highlight by me)

“WPMU and Buddypress is only half complete without WPMU Dev Premium”

Therein lies the problem. WordPress is not half-complete without subscribing to something for hundreds of dollars primarily because the people in its community (including Automattic) push improvements, fixes, and crucial features into the core software or existing plugins. When that development is instead channeled behind a paywall, regardless of license, the community suffers, as MU has.

I would like for MU and BuddyPress to be fully complete.

http://wpmu.org/wordpress-creator-re.../#comment-3922

I think this is the most straightforward explanation of his position on paid stuff. Fits those theme issues and rest just as well.

It's not about making money. It's about providing desirable (!) functionality for money. It is fine for GPL. But it is apparently "the problem" for Matt.

As I understand it - Matt considers community under supposed obligation to contribute to WordPress and related projects. I think this is exactly what so many agree with and what is often served as delirious concept of "GPL spirit".

• You can call me evil and ungrateful but only obligation I am under from using WordPress is GPL. No more, no less.
• In no way GPL says I have to contribute to project in any way.
• Only WordPress obligation that can be legally enforced is GPL.
• If community feels it suffers because of GPL - it should seek more spiritual product instead of bashing developers, whose only fault is being practical about GPL license.
• If Matt feels community suffers (!) because of GPL (!!!) - he should have used license that does fit his taste, instead of trying to equip GPL with unwritten moral clauses.
• I start to suspect whole GPL holy war is simply attempt to undercut those developers who openly use WordPress as they see fit (right granted to them by GPL) instead of adhering to "contributing obligation" supposedly put on them. It is not about open source and freedom at all, it is about forcing them into box or forcing them out of picture.

Overall situation boils down to split between legal status of GPL project and untold codex of what is right and what is wrong, enforced to some degree by parent company and part (far from all) of community.

[chipbennett]

As I understand it - Matt considers community under supposed obligation to contribute to WordPress and related projects. I think this is exactly what so many agree with and what is often served as delirious concept of "GPL spirit".

That pretty well sums up my understanding, also. And it's not just Matt. I've seen some of the commercial theme developers release their themes under GPL, and then complain about what others do with that GPL code, under the premise that somehow the "spirit" of the GPL has been violated.

When confronted with the fact that the license under which they released the themes explicitly allows for others to do what they have done, those same developers then appeal to "ethical" behavior.

Personally, I think that it is unethical to try to restrict others from exercising the rights that you explicitly granted them according to the terms of the license under which you released your code. I think that statement applies both to WordPress core, and to derivative works.

• You can call me evil and ungrateful but only obligation I am under from using WordPress is GPL. No more, no less.
• In no way GPL says I have to contribute to project in any way.
• Only WordPress obligation that can be legally enforced is GPL.
• If community feels it suffers because of GPL - it should seek more spiritual product instead of bashing developers, whose only fault is being practical about GPL license.
• If Matt feels community suffers (!) because of GPL (!!!) - he should have used license that does fit his taste, instead of trying to equip GPL with unwritten moral clauses.
• I start to suspect whole GPL holy war is simply attempt to undercut those developers who openly use WordPress as they see fit (right granted to them by GPL) instead of adhering to "contributing obligation" supposedly put on them. It is not about open source and freedom at all, it is about forcing them into box or forcing them out of picture.

Overall situation boils down to split between legal status of GPL project and untold codex of what is right and what is wrong, enforced to some degree by parent company and part (far from all) of community.

Eventually, the issue will come to a head. Unfortunately, I don't think the powers that be will heed the warning - very presciently and even-handedly issued by David Peralty - regarding to coming crisis.

I think Matt needs to consider Canonical (and Mark Shuttleworth) far more heavily than Apple (and Steve Jobs) as an analogous business and community model.

[brandingdavid]

Amen!

All I am asking for is a fair and balanced set of rules to be spelled out so that community contributors can understand what they are getting into.

How is it fair to cripple any development when the average WP user doesn't even understand how to use a plugin, let alone how to give anything back to the WP project?

This is why I am so frustrated, confused and annoyed. I think WordPress has a real opportunity as a community but that it will only work as a driving force behind the creation or devotion to a new piece of software rather than fixing the issue at hand: unilateral decision making based on emotion, ideals and ideas, rather than rules, facts, organization and "laws".

I enjoyed when Matt said that themes were GPL. I was even happier to see he had a third party come up with this response. I would have been even happier if it was put to a PUBLIC vote by those contributing to WP in the form of plugin authorship, theme authorship, code contributors, and forum members.

Matt isn't the community, and his ideals worked amazingly at getting the project past its baby steps, but now, we don't need someone to "protect" WordPress and its siblings any more. Instead, we need someone to guide, inform, and respect us.

[Otto]

I start to suspect whole GPL holy war is simply attempt to undercut those developers who openly use WordPress as they see fit (right granted to them by GPL) instead of adhering to "contributing obligation" supposedly put on them. It is not about open source and freedom at all, it is about forcing them into box or forcing them out of picture.

Nonsense. The whole problem is not Matt and the other core devs. They understand perfectly well what the GPL means, and have never strayed from that line.

Here's what it breaks down to: If you release anything that is derived from WordPress (this includes most plugins and *all* themes I've ever seen), then they must be GPL as well. If you want to hide your code behind a paywall, then that's fine and legal, as long as you abide by the GPL.

What's so confusing about this?

That said, I agree with Matt in that such paywall based systems are bad for the community and help nobody. Because people who are developing and then selling themes and plugins tend to get annoyed and upset when their code then gets "leaked" even though such a leak by a paying customer is perfectly within that customers rights. People who are profiting off of WordPress's free code are annoyed that they have to abide by the GPL because there's no particularly good way to sell code (as opposed to services) under the GPL.

I'd cite wpmu.org and related sites as prime examples of this. The WordPress MU community is in pretty bad shape, and it's mainly their fault for hiding all their stuff behind their paywall. A lot of code has had to be redeveloped in a free format because of them trying to make a buck. It's profiteering, I say. They see a problem, and develop a fix to that problem. But instead of giving the fix away to everybody (thus eliminating the problem), they set up their own community surrounding their fixes and charge admission. Then they get all upset when an independent fix is redeveloped by the original community. That's not helping the community at all.

But that's just an opinion, not a legal decision. Matt doesn't like it, I don't like it either. But it's not like anybody can *do* anything about it, since they are releasing under GPL, basically.

[Jeffro]

When I talked with Matt over the weekend in New York, he pretty much stated the same stuff Otto just said.

[Rarst]

Here's what it breaks down to: If you release anything that is derived from WordPress (this includes most plugins and *all* themes I've ever seen), then they must be GPL as well. If you want to hide your code behind a paywall, then that's fine and legal, as long as you abide by the GPL.

As I understand the project subject comments refers to is GPL. From subject post:

or I could go on about how everything we do is 100% GPL

Still is it "the problem" in Matt's words.

What's so confusing about this?

It is confusing to me that site providing legit services in line with GPL is referred to as problem and source of community suffering.

That said, I agree with Matt in that such paywall based systems are bad for the community and help nobody.

From comments in subject and few related posts I see that there are people more than happy to pay for their services and are content with quality. Aren't they part of community? Aren't they being helped?

Yes, paywall model is not helping those who would prefer to get same stuff for free. However saying that is it harmful to everyone is plain wrong.

I'd cite wpmu.org and related sites as prime examples of this. The WordPress MU community is in pretty bad shape, and it's mainly their fault for hiding all their stuff behind their paywall.

Their fault? Oh my, they are not working on project (that doesn't belong to them) for free. They are ruining it. Seriously?

A lot of code has had to be redeveloped in a free format because of them trying to make a buck.

As I understand they use subscription model. For a price of single subscription ($419/year) Automattic (well loaded company) is free to use any and all of their GPL code. Do you consider this bad deal?

But it's not about contributing at all, it is again about providing desirable services where Matt would prefer to see free ones. Because it is beneficial to core product and his business.

It's profiteering, I say.

Correct me if I am wrong, this is word that describes unethical and/or criminal business methods. Could you please clarify which ethics or laws paywall model breaks?

I completely agree with chipbennett above. As for me it is unethical to release project under GPL but complain when people exercise freedoms you explicitly gave them by that.

That's not helping the community at all.

They help. Otherwise they would have no clients and go poof very fast.

I do not get why you keep excluding paying customers from community. Had they sinned by involving money or something? :) What is "original community"? Anyone who is in line with spiritual arguments?

What is "unoriginal" community then? Anyone who has a nerve to follow letter of GPL over word of Matt and spiritual faction?

But it's not like anybody can *do* anything about it

There is one thing that some can and do - trash talk such projects and blame them for not contributing. Thing that they are under no obligation to do, but behavior that is shunned under spiritual arguments.

And this shunning strangely sparks each time people put own business, profit and living before that of Automattic.

[Otto]

It is confusing to me that site providing legit services in line with GPL is referred to as problem and source of community suffering.

I don't see why that's confusing. They're legal, but IMO, still wrong.

Look at it this way: I don't like what they do and the way they do things, even though I admit they're fully within their rights to do it.

Is that less confusing?

From comments in subject and few related posts I see that there are people more than happy to pay for their services and are content with quality. Aren't they part of community? Aren't they being helped?

No, they're part of their own separate, hidden behind a paywall, community.

In other words, that separate community is basically a leech. They take the free stuff the WordPress community as a whole gives away. They add their stuff onto it, then hide it away, giving nothing back to anybody that isn't paying for it. They take everything while giving nothing.

And again, they're within their rights to do so. Doesn't mean we have to like it.

Yes, paywall model is not helping those who would prefer to get same stuff for free. However saying that is it harmful to everyone is plain wrong.

It's harmful to everyone because it's not helpful to everyone. By not contributing anything back to the wider community, they're hoarding to themselves. They're preventing progress that could be acheived faster if they contributed.

Example: Let's say they develop a solution to a widespread problem and make people pay for it. Eventually, somebody has to create another solution for those people who don't pay for it. This is duplication of effort, and takes extra time.

Their fault? Oh my, they are not working on project (that doesn't belong to them) for free. They are ruining it. Seriously?

Yes. Seriously. Leeches suck blood from their hosts too. But if the host wasn't there, the leech would die.

As I understand they use subscription model. For a price of single subscription ($419/year) Automattic (well loaded company) is free to use any and all of their GPL code. Do you consider this bad deal?

Yes. I see this sort of behavior as profiteering. I contribute my code for free. Why can't they?

And again, I agree that I cannot force them to contribute. Doesn't mean I like it.

But it's not about contributing at all, it is again about providing desirable services where Matt would prefer to see free ones. Because it is beneficial to core product and his business.

And WordPress itself is the absolute *core* of their entire business. Without WordPress, they wouldn't exist. See the problem here with your reasoning?

Matt's core product and business is WordPress.com, and all of the major enhancements they've put into that exist as plugins, for free, for anybody to use. Automattic does indeed make money from WordPress. But they contribute back to it too.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making money. There is something wrong with taking other people's work and making money off of it without giving anything back in exchange. That's called "being a dick".

Correct me if I am wrong, this is word that describes unethical and/or criminal business methods. Could you please clarify which ethics or laws paywall model breaks?

I believe their behavior is unethical, yes. Illegal, no.

I completely agree with chipbennett above. As for me it is unethical to release project under GPL but complain when people exercise freedoms you explicitly gave them by that.

Nonsense. I'm free to hold any opinions I like. My opinion is meaningless, it's only my opinion. There is absolutely no ethical consideration involved in stating my opinions.

They help.

They help themselves.

I do not get why you keep excluding paying customers from community.

Because they're not part of our community, they're part of *their* community, the ones paying for the products. I am not and cannot be part of their community because I will not pay for these products. I cannot help them with their problems, because they're running code that is hidden to me. I cannot use solutions they have, because they won't give them to me. And on and on, by joining that paying community, they automatically exclude themselves from the rest of us, because we can't see what they do. It's an inherent separation of communities.

There is one thing that some can and do - trash talk such projects and blame them for not contributing. Thing that they are under no obligation to do, but behavior that is shunned under spiritual arguments.

The argument is not "spiritual", it is "ethical".

And this shunning strangely sparks each time people put own business, profit and living before that of Automattic.

I love how you continue to use victim language here.. "Shunning" and such. Makes me LOL.

I'm not "shunning" anybody. I'm saying it flat out, plain and clear: They're being dicks. If I met them, I'd tell it straight to their face: "Stop being such a dick."

Brother, that's not "shunning".

Also note that this has zero to do with Automattic. If they created something and kept it only on wp.com, I'd bitch at them too. Have done it before, in fact. In every case where they've made something cool, plugins have been created (or core mods made) to give this functionality back to the community as well. Code exists, right now, for free, to make an exact copy of WordPress.com, more or less.

[chipbennett]

Nonsense. The whole problem is not Matt and the other core devs. They understand perfectly well what the GPL means, and have never strayed from that line.

Nonsense. What in the GPL gives Matt the right to ostracize (at worst) or admonish (at best) in the name of the "spirit" of the GPL those who distribute WordPress-derivative works that are properly licensed under the GPL.

Here's what it breaks down to: If you release anything that is derived from WordPress (this includes most plugins and *all* themes I've ever seen), then they must be GPL as well.

You assert this point as fact, when it is not. There are two very significant arguments: 1) only PHP files that use WordPress-defined functions are derivative (the Images/CSS argument), and 2) since the functions can be re-written to avoid WP at all, even the PHP files aren't necessarily derivative (was it Nathan Rice who made this argument? I don't remember).

You absolutely cannot assert as fact that all themes are WordPress derivative, and therefore must be distributed under GPL.

In terms of Copyright law, such matters are only decided in court. Until such time, all of us are only expressing an opinion.

If you want to hide your code behind a paywall, then that's fine and legal, as long as you abide by the GPL.

What's so confusing about this?

The confusing part is the "fine and legal" part. Even when (sometimes begrudgingly) Matt admits that it is legal, he rarely admits that it is fine.

That said, I agree with Matt in that such paywall based systems are bad for the community and help nobody. Because people who are developing and then selling themes and plugins tend to get annoyed and upset when their code then gets "leaked" even though such a leak by a paying customer is perfectly within that customers rights.

I am equally critical of developers who take this stance. If they release under GPL, then they have absolutely no control whatsoever over what someone who purchases their GPL code does with it. They knowingly released under GPL, and so should not complain when someone re-distributes that code.

People who are profiting off of WordPress's free code are annoyed that they have to abide by the GPL because there's no particularly good way to sell code (as opposed to services) under the GPL.

To be fair: they are not profiting off of WordPress' free code. They are profiting off of the additional code or services they develop or render. (Unless you know of some business out there doing nothing but selling latest.zip?)

I'd cite wpmu.org and related sites as prime examples of this. The WordPress MU community is in pretty bad shape, and it's mainly their fault for hiding all their stuff behind their paywall.

Why are wpmu.org responsible for the state of shape of the WordPressMU community?

Why would WordPressMU be in bad shape? Its code is nearly identical to that of WordPress. If WPMU is in bad shape with respect to code, why is wpmu.org responsible, and not Automattic? I daresay Automattic has considerably more resources that could be devoted to WordPressMU. It is a business decision on the part of Automattic to devote the lion's share of their resources to WordPress. That is very likely a very good decision. It is in no way wpmu.org's fault for Automattic making that decision.

A lot of code has had to be redeveloped in a free format because of them trying to make a buck.

So buy the code, and implement it into WordPressMU core. It is GPL, after all.

It's profiteering, I say.

How does wpmu.org make excessive/unreasonable profits for a scarce good? Use of such a term is nothing more than a slur.

You see, it is this very type of aspersion-casting that is wrong.

They see a problem, and develop a fix to that problem. But instead of giving the fix away to everybody (thus eliminating the problem), they set up their own community surrounding their fixes and charge admission.

Woo hoo! Go, free market, go!

Then they get all upset when an independent fix is redeveloped by the original community. That's not helping the community at all.

Can you cite a reference of wpmu.org acting in this way? I've not heard of it. If they did so, then they are equally in the wrong.

But that's just an opinion, not a legal decision. Matt doesn't like it, I don't like it either. But it's not like anybody can *do* anything about it, since they are releasing under GPL, basically.

What do you mean, "basically"? Either they are releasing under GPL, or they are not. It is black-and-white. There are not "degrees" or "shades of gray" with respect to conforming to the license requirements of GPL.

Matt may not like it. You may not like it.

But enough of the WordPressMU community like it to make it profitable for wpmu.org. The community, through the free market, is deciding, regardless of what you or Matt like or dislike.

If you want to change it, then change the landscape: change the options available to those who currently choose to pay for wpmu.org subscriptions.

But quit ostracizing those who are not violating the GPL. They are not "profiteering". They are not merely "basically" releasing under GPL. They are not at fault for the sky falling on WordPressMU or its communiy. They are not at fault for a lack of resources or contribution to WordPressMU.

[Otto]

Nonsense. What in the GPL gives Matt the right to ostracize (at worst) or admonish (at best) in the name of the "spirit" of the GPL those who distribute WordPress-derivative works that are properly licensed under the GPL.

Why in the heck do you think he needs any sort of "right" to do that?

I can admonish or ostracize anybody for any reason I like, any time I like. I need absolutely no "right" to do so. It's called "freedom", brother.

You assert this point as fact, when it is not. There are two very significant arguments:...

... neither of which I'm interested in. I know the argument as well as you do and it's played out. I stand by my opinion in this matter.

I am equally critical of developers who take this stance. If they release under GPL, then they have absolutely no control whatsoever over what someone who purchases their GPL code does with it. They knowingly released under GPL, and so should not complain when someone re-distributes that code.

What gives you the right to tell developers what they "should" and "should not" do?

See, that knife cuts both ways.

I always reserve the right to complain, about anything and everything, as loudly as I want to. And if you don't like it, well, feel free to complain back.

To be fair: they are not profiting off of WordPress' free code. They are profiting off of the additional code or services they develop or render. (Unless you know of some business out there doing nothing but selling latest.zip?)

Nonsense. If WordPress was not available to them, they couldn't be making a profit with their code. The fact is that they are making a profit off the work of others. And that's not illegal, mind you. WordPress is free as in speech. So they're in the clear.

Why are wpmu.org responsible for the state of shape of the WordPressMU community?

It is my considered opinion that much of the community that exists has been pulled into their community instead, drawing resources away from the MU community as a whole.

You see, it is this very type of aspersion-casting that is wrong.

Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelt of elderberries.

Woo hoo! Go, free market, go!

Yeah, woo! Feel free to flip others the finger and take their free work and use it for yourselves! Woo! Selfish bastards, go!

Can you cite a reference of wpmu.org acting in this way? I've not heard of it. If they did so, then they are equally in the wrong.

Multi-DB vs. HyperDB.

But quit ostracizing those who are not violating the GPL.

No. I won't. What are you going to do about it? Nothing? Thought not.

I will continue to state my opinion, repeatedly. And if you keep arguing with me, then I'll only state it more loudly. Because, and this is important, it's my opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, but don't stand there and try to tell me what it is that I think. Simply disagree and move on. Arguing just makes it more public, more loud, more annoying. And I can continue to argue and disagree all day, if that's what you want.

They are not "profiteering". They are not merely "basically" releasing under GPL. They are not at fault for the sky falling on WordPressMU or its communiy. They are not at fault for a lack of resources or contribution to WordPressMU.

I disagree. And I will continue to disagree, vocally. If you don't like that, too bad.

[Rarst]

I don't see why that's confusing. They're legal, but IMO, still wrong.

Developer looks at WordPress, sees it is licensed under GPL - which is very explicit and common license. He decides to provide some nice services, fully complying to GPL.

Suddenly there is crowd of people shouting that he is a dick.

Developer thought WordPress is project with clear license, turns out there is load of unwritten rules and he is a dick - unless he obeys those as well as GPL.

This is confusing. If you read all the rules but don't understand situation until someone calls you dick, then you were either uninformed, misinformed or lied to. So which case is WP?

I love how you continue to use victim language here.. "Shunning" and such. Makes me LOL.

I'm not "shunning" anybody. I'm saying it flat out, plain and clear: They're being dicks. If I met them, I'd tell it straight to their face: "Stop being such a dick."

I use victim language because I consider such treatment unfair and confusing. If WordPress has such a strong ethics - why is it released under license that is so different?

If people who adhere to all rules end up being dicks... I think those who are setting the rules are dicks in first place. That want benefits of GPL for their project, but don't want people to use freedoms that come with it.