New WordCamp Policy

[Otto]

Again: specific person used for example only. Substitute any other name. The point is that those who choose not to release under GPL are still quite knowledgeable about WordPress, and represent a great opportunity for education within the rest of the community.

I used "the man" in my quote for a reason. I don't know the guy or even remember his name. I assume your identification is correct, but it's irrelevant.

Those who choose to violate the GPL may have a great deal of knowledge, but I would not want them to speak on that knowledge at a WordCamp either for the reasons I stated before: they are not trustworthy as a source for such information and their credentials and motives are suspect. I cannot believe their information to be accurate because of their actions. I would suspect them to be dealing in disinformation and other forms of FUD. In short, they are the enemy.

[chipbennett]

I used "the man" in my quote for a reason. I don't know the guy or even remember his name. I assume your identification is correct, but it's irrelevant.

Those who choose to violate the GPL may have a great deal of knowledge, but I would not want them to speak on that knowledge at a WordCamp either for the reasons I stated before: they are not trustworthy as a source for such information and their credentials and motives are suspect. I cannot believe their information to be accurate because of their actions. I would suspect them to be dealing in disinformation and other forms of FUD. In short, they are the enemy.

...and I present Exhibit A of prima facie evidence of an attitude that is poisonous to the WordPress community.

To declare that someone cannot impart correct, factual, or sincere WordPress-related knowledge to the community simply because one differs on the legal interpretation of GPL inheritance is logically asinine, and cancerous to the community.

Otto, neither you nor I is a lawyer, nor are we judges charged with decided a copyright infringement case involving GPL and a WordPress theme. Thus, our opinions and interpretations are as valid and worthy - that is, legally speaking, as invalid and unworthy - as the next person's. Copyright infringement claims are settled in court for a reason.

Yet, somehow, it is generally my opinion and my outspokenness on this matter that gets labeled as "poisonous" - even though it is my opinion that is arguing for more openness, more freedom, and more inclusiveness (an assertion with which, at least with respect to the claim of inclusiveness, I doubt you would disagree).

[chipbennett]

True, however I do not accept or give any credence to the alternative interpretation that you are proposing. I feel certain that a court case would prove you wrong, and for me at least, that is that.


I, very decidedly, do not accept that difference for this matter. In my view, either you agree with me, or you're wrong. All other interpretations are nothing but self-serving ones made by people with a wholly profit-oriented motive.


You are absolutely and totally correct here. I am the one who is unwilling to agree to disagree on this matter, and every time I see it needing to be called out, I will so call it out.

So if you don't want to bring it up and have this argument again, then don't bring it up and have the argument again.

Otto, my statement wasn't actually directed at you. I understand and accept that you disagree with me on these matters.

You're not in a leadership position, though. I am much more concerned with those in leadership/power positions who are equally unyielding (if not quite so acerbic about it).

My point in bringing it up here is not to rehash or attempt to revive the old arguments, but merely to point out that the root of so many problems is utter lack of compromise or agreement or, in some cases, even respect for others' viewpoints.

Your position could ultimately be proven correct in a legal case. But, the reality is that, unless and until there is such a case, the disagreement will persist, and those who hold the differing opinion will have legal grounds to continue to exist and to persist in their actions. Becoming ever-more dictatorial in enforcement of ideological purity will not eradicate those who hold a differing opinion, and will only continue to drive a wedge in the community.

The only common-sense options here are a) WPF take someone to court for copyright infringement, and settle the matter legally, or b) take a more compromising stance, and stop making pariahs out of those who hold the differing opinion.

Anything else - anything else - including the current course WPF and Matt appear to be on, will result in eventual, irreparable harm to the WordPress community.

Am I a voice crying in the wilderness on this matter? Yes. I understand that I am. But I care about the future of the WordPress project and the WordPress community, so I'm willing to take the flak.

[Otto]

To declare that someone cannot impart correct, factual, or sincere WordPress-related knowledge to the community simply because one differs on the legal interpretation of GPL inheritance is logically asinine, and cancerous to the community.

I didn't say he "cannot". I said I have no reason to trust that he will. His motives are already suspect due to his actions.

If somebody behaves in a manner that I consider unethical, then I would not listen to him talk about ethics.

Yet, somehow, it is generally my opinion and my outspokenness on this matter that gets labeled as "poisonous" - even though it is my opinion that is arguing for more openness, more freedom, and more inclusiveness (an assertion with which, at least with respect to the claim of inclusiveness, I doubt you would disagree).

I assert that you sort of "openness" is undesirable and poisonous in and of itself. We do not need our "community", such as it is, to be driven by profit-oriented motivations. Denying these types of people is entirely a good thing, in my view, because we are thus better keep their viewpoints OUT of the community.

You seem to think all viewpoints are equally valid and good and that "openness" is being accepting of all things. Well, that's simply not the type of "open" we're talking about here. We want to keep things open for all people, and sometimes that means excluding those people who have demonstrated their propensities at making things more closed.

[chipbennett]

I didn't say he "cannot". I said I have no reason to trust that he will. His motives are already suspect due to his actions.

If somebody behaves in a manner that I consider unethical, then I would not listen to him talk about ethics.


I assert that you sort of "openness" is undesirable and poisonous in and of itself. We do not need our "community", such as it is, to be driven by profit-oriented motivations. Denying these types of people is entirely a good thing, in my view, because we are thus better keep their viewpoints OUT of the community.

You seem to think all viewpoints are equally valid and good and that "openness" is being accepting of all things. Well, that's simply not the type of "open" we're talking about here. We want to keep things open for all people, and sometimes that means excluding those people who have demonstrated their propensities at making things more closed.

Openness is also best served by encompassing the openness to express all viewpoints. The validity, correctness, and "rightness" of opposing viewpoints are generally best settled by an open and forthright discussion of those viewpoints.

And profit motives aren't inherently evil. WordPress as it currently exists would not exist without the profit motive that drove Matt to found Automattic and to seek VC funding that has produced WordPress and so many other related projects.

[Otto]

I am much more concerned with those in leadership/power positions who are equally unyielding (if not quite so acerbic about it).

Yes. I try to be acerbic so they don't have to. :)

Becoming ever-more dictatorial in enforcement of ideological purity will not eradicate those who hold a differing opinion, and will only continue to drive a wedge in the community.

I would counter that perhaps that is the goal. If there's a wedge, then there's a split. I'd have absolutely no problem with those types of people going away and forming their own community. They tend to do that anyway.

What bothers me is that they then continue to leech off the work of this community, the one actually contributing to WordPress, giving their code to others, and communicating freely and openly. It bugs me that code I give away for free is being sold by other people, or that information I give away for free is being used to create things which other people sell. Admittedly, it doesn't bug me enough to sue over it, but it does bug me enough to complain about it.

The only common-sense options here are a) WPF take someone to court for copyright infringement, and settle the matter legally, or b) take a more compromising stance, and stop making pariahs out of those who hold the differing opinion.

I prefer c) complain long and loud enough until these sorts of leeches go away and bug somebody else.

Anything else - anything else - including the current course WPF and Matt appear to be on, will result in eventual, irreparable harm to the WordPress community.

I do not believe that it will, and if it did, I would not call it "harm".

In medicine, we cut out cancers, you know.

Am I a voice crying in the wilderness on this matter? Yes. I understand that I am. But I care about the future of the WordPress project and the WordPress community, so I'm willing to take the flak.

I want you to know that I do indeed understand your viewpoint. I simply think that it's misguided. To put it into metaphor, you're of the "you catch more flies with honey" type of thing, but I tend to think that "honey also attracts wasps".

I don't think that we need these sorts of people in our community, and I am perfectly happy to alienate them until they go away or change their behavior. However, I'm not going to pat them on the back and say it's okay when the fact of the matter is that it's really not okay at all.

But that's just my opinion, of course. :D

[Otto]

Openness is also best served by encompassing the openness to express all viewpoints. The validity, correctness, and "rightness" of opposing viewpoints are generally best settled by an open and forthright discussion of those viewpoints.

No, I disagree. In a theoretical society of all rational and sane people, sure, but the real world doesn't work like that. Some viewpoints should be suppressed because they're wrong and dangerous to express openly. I have no problem judging a view as unworthy of expression when it's in my power to do so, and I won't blame anybody else for doing the same when they have the ability.

And profit motives aren't inherently evil.

Of course not, if channeled properly. But when they tend to drive people to do evil things, QED.

[Rarst]

Not again... Even I get burned out.

WordPress has no philosophy behind it. It doesn't has its own (screaming "freedom" is not philosophy) and it cannot claim GPL philosophy, because some things being passed as this philosophy are opposite of what GPL encourages (paywalls for example).

Every time this philosophy stuff comes up it is usually about someone making money without Automattic getting a cut (figuratively). Because spirit seems to be working for WP a lot, for free and treating like disease anyone who dares not to.

[aldenml]

GLP was created in a different context and at the time PHP was almost nothing. Just go to a developer from a big GPL project like the Linux Kernel and ask about GPL and PHP, I'm pretty sure you will get a pleasant smiley face. Is WP willing to promote open source freedom? You can adopt the Microsoft Ms-PL license.

[kenny]

I believe I said WordPress community, not open-source community.

I believe this is a good example of a big disconnect. Yes, WordPress has a community, but because of the purpose behind Free Software, it gets to be a part of a larger community: the superset of all Free Software. WordPress actually came from another piece of free software, B2. That's very significant as it means that B2 and WordPress had the same community. Something enabled that. This is why the GPL is so important. I think this is where the disconnect happens. If you don't license your work under the GPL, how do you enable this type of community?

Another beef: I don't understand how someone can say there isn't a spirit behind the GPL, or that if there is, it doesn't matter.

All written rules have a purpose behind them. Our constitution was written by men who had a purpose and a spirit behind their words. I'm sure their hope was that they instilled the proper intent behind the carefully crafted documents. Judges all along the way have argued what the intent was behind some of those words. Yes, Judges.

The same goes for a software license. The people who wrote the GPL had an intent or spirit that drove them to write the words contained in it. If you don't know what it is, ask them. Most of them are still alive.

And you know what, we've even seen them clarify that intent. For example, when TIVO decided to use a loophole in GPLv2, I think it was pretty clear that the license couldn't stop them. But nobody sat and questioned the intent and spirit of the GPL; the authors made it clear the path TIVO was going down was never intended. TIVO decided to troll up the place anyway. Thus, and unfortunately, the FSF had to re-iterate their spirit and intent in GPLv3. But it never really changed. You think the FSF asked the CEO of TIVO to talk at their next convention?

The question here is, do you support the intent behind Free Software? One of the clear signs of not doing so is not following the guidelines set forth in the license. If not, fine, but don't sit here and try and wiggle your way out of a license that has a clear intent.

And if you do, don't think you should be invited to speak or sponsor a WordCamp.