The guy who, in the first place, came up with the idea for a fork of b2/cafelog (which would come to be known as WordPress), is Matt Mullenweg. He’s still the lead developer of the open-source WordPress project to this day, 20 years later.
It is true that Mullenweg’s company Automattic gave the WordPress trademark to the WordPress Foundation in 2010. The founder of said foundation is the very same Matt Mullenweg. It is not the case that Automattic and the Foundation “legally […] have to be separate”, that’s a choice that Automattic/Mullenweg made.
It is a fact that without Mullenweg, WordPress would not exist, period (neither .org nor .com). Mullenweg/Automattic do not only “[influence] the WP org”, they created (and still lead!) the WP org.
Of course, I’m sure WP Engine is a fine host, and all the better that they also contribute back to the WP project (that’s the power of open source!).
It is not the case that Automattic and the Foundation “legally […] have to be separate”, that’s a choice that Automattic/Mullenweg made.
Yes, it is literally illegal in the US for a for-profit business to also be a non-profit entity, thus Automattic and the WordPress Foundation are separate entities. The WordPress foundation does contain some of the same people, and contributors to the free and open-source software also has some of the same people but it also consists of many others that contribute equally or possibly more., which is why I brought up WP Engine (though I personally don’t consider them to be “a fine host”). I don’t know if you’re intentionally being obtuse about this useless pedantry. Additionally, while the software on WordPress.com is a fork of the WordPress software and based on it, they are very different. I have had to migrate sites away from WP.com to use the open-source WordPress software many times and it is a pain in the ass every time because of that.
Nothing of what you mentioned has any bearing on my point. Automattic is a for-profit business that is using the name and trademark of a non-profit business to trick people into thinking that Automattic/WordPress.com and the free and open source software provided by WordPress.org are the same thing.
It is particularly fucked up when you consider the WordPress Foundation’s clear stance on using the name WordPress in your domain or the logo for your business (https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/) . Why does WordPress.com get a free pass? They are a for-profit business just the same as many others with the main difference being that the owner and CEO of the for-profit business is the same person as the founder and lead developer of the non-profit organization. That is super fucked up! It is a clear conflict of interest.
Also, WordPress.com does nothing to make it clear that they are a separate entity from WordPress.org, particularly for people who don’t know any better. They hear “You should make a WordPress site.” from people and stumble on WordPress.com and then learn they have to pay significantly more money to simply install plugins, which is a big reason why WordPress has such a large userbase, and there are more issues that they run into than just the ridiculous costs.
WordPress.org even has a link to WordPress.com in their footer. Do they provide any other link to competitor for-profit businesses?
Can you tell which of these two tabs you can find the free and open source software?
Is Red Hat a conflict of interest? MongoDB (pre-2018)? Docker? Nginx? These for-profit companies all sell proprietary software alongside their open-source offerings with the same name.
Is it a conflict of interest that Plausible Analytics profits off a hosted version of their open-source software? How about GitLab? How about Bitwarden?
If you take issue with companies selling products based on open-source software they created (and using the same name), there are a LOT more companies you should take issue with than just Automattic (who, as discussed, voluntarily spun off their trademarks into a non-profit, unlike the companies named above).
A for-profit business also offering an open-source software is not a conflict of interest and perfectly fine, and like you show, there are plenty of examples of this behavior.
However, what absolutely is a conflict of interest, and is scummy as fuck, is running an non-profit that actively works as an advertising platform for your for-profit business as well as making it intentionally confusing to people that there are two separate entities of a non-profit and for-profit while giving preferential treatment towards that business among other competitors in the market.
So, all the companies I named and many more, then.
Go on, go on Docker’s or GitLab’s website (just to name two examples), and let me know how clear the distinction between their proprietary and open-source software is.
Do people think that Docker is a non-profit? Is there a separate non-profit called “Docker.org” that runs over 43% of the Internet that the for-profit “Docker.com” (a separate entity) intentionally conflates with themselves and uses the non-profit organization to get a major advantage over many other for-profit businesses that sell hosting for Docker?
It seems like you’re trying to read what I am saying in a way that fits what you want me to be saying and ignoring what I am saying rather than what I am clearly communicating.
There is a separate open source project “Docker Engine” that runs 27% of containerized applications, that the for-profit “Docker Inc.” intentionally conflates with the proprietary, for-profit software “Docker Desktop” to get a major advantage over other for-profit businesses that sell tooling for “Docker Engine”.
To make matters worse, “Docker Inc.” still controls the “Docker Engine” project and “Docker” trademark. This contrasts with “Automattic”, which spun out the “WordPress” project and trademark into a separate entity “WordPress Foundation”.
It seems like you’re trying to read what I am saying in a way that fits what you want me to be saying and ignoring what I am saying rather than what I am clearly communicating.
Sorry, but I think this applies to you more than it does to me.
I’ll make one final attempt to spell it out. Mullenweg and Little founded “WordPress” and spun it out of Mullenweg’s company “Automattic” as a separate non-profit.
Founadi, Hykes and Pahl founded “Docker Engine” and did not spin it out of their company “Docker Inc.” as a separate non-profit (which is the case for MOST companies that create open-source software).
I can’t put any more of a fine point on it, so this will be my last comment on the topic. Have a good day.
That’s literally my point. Docker doesn’t pretend to be a non-profit, WordPress does.
Your ‘points’ were:
[Automattic] intentionally leads people to conflate the free and open-source software WordPress (WordPress.org) and their own proprietary and overpriced version.
Most companies doing open source lead people to conflate their free and open source software with their own proprietary version.
Both are quite literally led by the same person, and have been since their founding.
Now you have strayed the discussion to another ‘point’ (while accusing me of arguing in bad faith):
WordPress ‘pretends’ to be a non-profit.
To humor you I shall also provide a rebuttal to this third point:
WordPress doesn’t pretend to be anything of the sort, because:
WP.org claims, on its homepage, to be “the open source platform that powers the web,” “built by an open source community with decades of experience,” and “community at its core.” It does not claim to be a non-profit.
WP.com claims, on its homepage, to be “WordPress, Your Way,” “the best way to WordPress,” and “lightning-fast, secure managed WordPress hosting.” It does not claim to be a non-profit.
The WordPress Foundation claims, on its homepage, to be “a charitable organization founded by Matt Mullenweg to further the mission of the WordPress open source project”, because it is.
The guy who, in the first place, came up with the idea for a fork of b2/cafelog (which would come to be known as WordPress), is Matt Mullenweg. He’s still the lead developer of the open-source WordPress project to this day, 20 years later.
It is true that Mullenweg’s company Automattic gave the WordPress trademark to the WordPress Foundation in 2010. The founder of said foundation is the very same Matt Mullenweg. It is not the case that Automattic and the Foundation “legally […] have to be separate”, that’s a choice that Automattic/Mullenweg made.
It is a fact that without Mullenweg, WordPress would not exist, period (neither .org nor .com). Mullenweg/Automattic do not only “[influence] the WP org”, they created (and still lead!) the WP org.
Of course, I’m sure WP Engine is a fine host, and all the better that they also contribute back to the WP project (that’s the power of open source!).
Yes, it is literally illegal in the US for a for-profit business to also be a non-profit entity, thus Automattic and the WordPress Foundation are separate entities. The WordPress foundation does contain some of the same people, and contributors to the free and open-source software also has some of the same people but it also consists of many others that contribute equally or possibly more., which is why I brought up WP Engine (though I personally don’t consider them to be “a fine host”). I don’t know if you’re intentionally being obtuse about this useless pedantry. Additionally, while the software on WordPress.com is a fork of the WordPress software and based on it, they are very different. I have had to migrate sites away from WP.com to use the open-source WordPress software many times and it is a pain in the ass every time because of that.
Nothing of what you mentioned has any bearing on my point. Automattic is a for-profit business that is using the name and trademark of a non-profit business to trick people into thinking that Automattic/WordPress.com and the free and open source software provided by WordPress.org are the same thing.
It is particularly fucked up when you consider the WordPress Foundation’s clear stance on using the name WordPress in your domain or the logo for your business (https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/) . Why does WordPress.com get a free pass? They are a for-profit business just the same as many others with the main difference being that the owner and CEO of the for-profit business is the same person as the founder and lead developer of the non-profit organization. That is super fucked up! It is a clear conflict of interest.
Also, WordPress.com does nothing to make it clear that they are a separate entity from WordPress.org, particularly for people who don’t know any better. They hear “You should make a WordPress site.” from people and stumble on WordPress.com and then learn they have to pay significantly more money to simply install plugins, which is a big reason why WordPress has such a large userbase, and there are more issues that they run into than just the ridiculous costs.
WordPress.org even has a link to WordPress.com in their footer. Do they provide any other link to competitor for-profit businesses?
Can you tell which of these two tabs you can find the free and open source software?
Is Red Hat a conflict of interest? MongoDB (pre-2018)? Docker? Nginx? These for-profit companies all sell proprietary software alongside their open-source offerings with the same name.
Is it a conflict of interest that Plausible Analytics profits off a hosted version of their open-source software? How about GitLab? How about Bitwarden?
If you take issue with companies selling products based on open-source software they created (and using the same name), there are a LOT more companies you should take issue with than just Automattic (who, as discussed, voluntarily spun off their trademarks into a non-profit, unlike the companies named above).
A for-profit business also offering an open-source software is not a conflict of interest and perfectly fine, and like you show, there are plenty of examples of this behavior.
However, what absolutely is a conflict of interest, and is scummy as fuck, is running an non-profit that actively works as an advertising platform for your for-profit business as well as making it intentionally confusing to people that there are two separate entities of a non-profit and for-profit while giving preferential treatment towards that business among other competitors in the market.
So, all the companies I named and many more, then.
Go on, go on Docker’s or GitLab’s website (just to name two examples), and let me know how clear the distinction between their proprietary and open-source software is.
Do people think that Docker is a non-profit? Is there a separate non-profit called “Docker.org” that runs over 43% of the Internet that the for-profit “Docker.com” (a separate entity) intentionally conflates with themselves and uses the non-profit organization to get a major advantage over many other for-profit businesses that sell hosting for Docker?
It seems like you’re trying to read what I am saying in a way that fits what you want me to be saying and ignoring what I am saying rather than what I am clearly communicating.
No, it’s worse than that.
There is a separate open source project “Docker Engine” that runs 27% of containerized applications, that the for-profit “Docker Inc.” intentionally conflates with the proprietary, for-profit software “Docker Desktop” to get a major advantage over other for-profit businesses that sell tooling for “Docker Engine”.
To make matters worse, “Docker Inc.” still controls the “Docker Engine” project and “Docker” trademark. This contrasts with “Automattic”, which spun out the “WordPress” project and trademark into a separate entity “WordPress Foundation”.
Sorry, but I think this applies to you more than it does to me.
I’ll make one final attempt to spell it out. Mullenweg and Little founded “WordPress” and spun it out of Mullenweg’s company “Automattic” as a separate non-profit.
Founadi, Hykes and Pahl founded “Docker Engine” and did not spin it out of their company “Docker Inc.” as a separate non-profit (which is the case for MOST companies that create open-source software).
I can’t put any more of a fine point on it, so this will be my last comment on the topic. Have a good day.
That’s literally my point. Docker doesn’t pretend to be a non-profit, WordPress does.
What a blowhard way of saying the most childish response of “no u”.
Your ‘points’ were:
I’ve already provided rebuttals to both points:
Now you have strayed the discussion to another ‘point’ (while accusing me of arguing in bad faith):
To humor you I shall also provide a rebuttal to this third point:
By the way… WP.org goes out of its way to recommend various hosting providers beside WP.com.