iambateman 4 hours ago

If you’ve followed closely, this article is a retread of the last four months.

Also will someone please fork WordPress.

xt00 4 hours ago

Wreck wordpress? doesn't seem like it -- seems like a classic "somebody pseudo forked my open-source-ish product / project and they became too popular".. so I'm going to try to prevent fragmentation / somebody else "making money off of all my hard work" kind of thing.

  • adamhartenz 2 hours ago

    Yes, and they way they are going about it is wrecking wordpress

  • zdragnar 3 hours ago

    The takeover and renaming of a third party extension and subsequent updates which released previously paid features was a huge shock.

    Add on top of that Matt claimed that WordPress.org is his personal website, so neither it nor the official plug-in repository are under the control of the foundation (unless he's walked back that claim since I last paid attention).

    There's still going to be plenty of users, but a lot of trust has been lost, and a lot of users are now looking for alternatives.

dhotson 3 hours ago

I'm just catching up.. can someone please explain why this part is unreasonable?

- WordPress code is open-source.

- WP Engine is entitled to use the source code.

I don't see how that entitles a for-profit entity such as WP Engine, to use the non-profit wordpress.org theme/plugin repository resources and infrastructure for free?

If you were WP Engine, wouldn't you want to have your own copy that you control anyway? Am I missing something?

  • FlamingMoe 3 hours ago

    The WordPress community of developers/contributors has been under the impression that the dot org site was under the control of the nonprofit WP foundation. However Matt recently declared that dot org has been his personal website this whole time, and that entitles him to solely decide when someone else can no longer use it. However documents of the founding seem to indicate that dot org is indeed under the foundation: https://x.com/sneakytits85/status/1881119968215142462?s=46

  • dylan604 3 hours ago

    Because that's how open source works. If you don't want for profit companies using code for free, then offer it under a license that states that.

    • nejsjsjsbsb 3 hours ago

      Parent is asking about infra not copyright.

      This is interesting in terms of Github. They could pull the same thing and say only the porceline git client and MS approved clients can pull. After all it is their servers. The open source licenses are orthogonal to this and are between authors and users.

    • likeabatterycar 3 hours ago

      Open source doesn't give you carte blanche to leech off someone's infrastructure. Remember when Netgear hard coded someone's NTP server into their routers and all hell broke loose?

      Back in the day if you caught someone hot-linking images from your web server it wasn't uncommon for admins to redirect abusive referrers to goatse etc. That usually got them to knock it off real quick.

      • cmeacham98 3 hours ago

        Using WordPress.org services isn't some rogue hotlink, it's hardcoded into the WordPress source code. And Matt explicitly refuses to add a config option to switch servers[1] - you have to manually patch WP to do so.

        Legally, he may be in the right (I'm not a lawyer and I'm not going to pretend like I can accurately predict the outcome of the ongoing lawsuit), but morally I think I can reasonably say that Matt is pretty squarely in the wrong when he's trying to abuse WP.org services to blackmail WP Engine out of 8% of their revenue.

        1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41676885

  • ensignavenger 42 minutes ago

    Because the Wordpress organization is a nonprofit, the organizations assets can't be used to the exclusive benefit of a for profit- Automatic. And therein lies the issue- Mullenweg attempted to weaponize the nonprofits assets against WP Engine in favor of his own for profit. Whether or not those actions were legal is being decided in court, but it doesn't look good for Mullenweg. And it certainly wasn't in the best interests of the wider Wordpress ecosystem, which is what Wordpress.org the nonprofit was setup to serve.

  • ceejayoz 3 hours ago

    It’s unreasonable because the real reason was WordPress.com looking to kneecap a competitor.

    Doubly so when they tried stealing the plugin.

    • refulgentis 3 hours ago

      Curious what you'd make of these holdings, I'm not up on all the nonsense that's happened:

      - It was reasonable, in that it is fair and sensible, in that it was not trying to attain an unjust advantage. It might not be generous. But that's life in the big leagues.

      - Going about it boorishly (ex. the login checkbox), then reacting poorly in an attempt to own the haters, definitely crossed a line (I'm sure stealing their plugin did as well, assuming they overrode someone else's code with their own in people's installs)

  • kemayo 3 hours ago

    In the abstract, yeah, that'd probably be fine. Maybe not 100% legally -- the injunction that WP Engine got seems to imply that blocking one specific competitor from using the infrastructure might not be cool -- but if it was a restriction that was in place from the beginning, it'd probably have been acceptable.

    It's mostly that WordPress maintained that infrastructure for a very long time without having any sort of restrictions on who could use it -- whether you're a self-hosted WordPress site, or you're using some sort of managed hosting (like WP Engine or WordPress.com). Plus it's literally hardcoded into WordPress to use it; you can't change that without maintaining your own patched version. So everyone involved in the WordPress community viewed it as a general public good for all users of WordPress... and it suddenly getting weaponized didn't play well. For one thing, it put up a lot of people who were just users of WordPress as collateral damage.

    (And the cost of the infrastructure doesn't seem to have been one of Matt's complaints, in general. If it was, and he'd been up-front about that, I suspect reactions might have been different.)

snihalani 4 hours ago

is there an opportunity to make a vendor neutral Wordpress here?

  • dboreham 4 hours ago

    Just can't call it Wordpress. So Locutionprinter or something.

    • Brian-Puccio 4 hours ago

      WP is a fork of b2/cafelog. So b3/bistrolist?

      (There’s also b2evolution.)

    • albert_e 4 hours ago

      VerbalCompressor?

      EDIT to add:

      SentencePublisher

      TokenStream

      IdeaRadio

      • dboreham 4 hours ago

        Well I didn't just register that domain, but sure..

generj 4 hours ago

It’s amazing nobody has sat him down and told him to stop throwing temper tantrums yet.

  • ceejayoz 4 hours ago

    He gave severance packages to that cohort.

  • dboreham 3 hours ago

    That exact thing happened here, several times.

dcchambers 3 hours ago

It's really sad seeing this whole saga play out.

xupybd 4 hours ago

I've heard speculation that he as VCs driving him to make money and this is causing all the crazy behaviour.

  • dboreham 3 hours ago

    That could also lead someone to blow the hatch.

linotype 4 hours ago

When you’re as rich as he is what difference does it make?

  • paxys 4 hours ago

    Funny thing is his net worth is almost entirely tied in Automattic, and he is doing his very best to crater the company's value.

  • choult 4 hours ago

    His sense of self importance and relevance seems to be especially crucial to him. He is losing both.

    • CoastalCoder 4 hours ago

      I'm trying to figure out what's the most loving thing to do for a person in his situation.

      • choult 4 hours ago

        I've done my best not to pathologize him here, but...

        Suggest therapy.

      • dylan604 3 hours ago

        Sometimes, rock bottom is the only way to stop

        • bravetraveler 3 hours ago

          +1, unfortunately counter-intuitive. A bit of a song comes to mind:

          "A junkie won't bounce until he hits the ground" - Say Hey There, Atmosphere

          My family and I all tried to help a sibling for something like 20 years. Nothing stuck [from us], they had to choose it. The ground helped. Trying to minimize harm just created more :/

      • KerrAvon 4 hours ago

        If you’re a relative or friend, take them aside and have a frank conversation. If not, nothing you can do!

        • spokaneplumb 3 hours ago

          And accept that there’s a good chance this will accomplish nothing but getting you on their naysayers list.

          People can continue behavior where all they really need to do is stop actively harming themselves for no gain at all for years. It’s bizarre to watch from the outside. In the best cases they haven’t roped anyone else into their delusion-bubble.

      • airstrike 4 hours ago

        I think it's to try to help them by offering compassion, understanding, and trying to create harmony.

        Try to look at it from an outside perspective instead of through the lens of our own preconception. Humans are subject to making terrible mistakes and lapses of judgment. Sometimes things spiral out of control. We all have our demons, so to speak.

        It's very easy to judge a tech multimillionaire bro and saying he should know better, he deserves this, etc. And I mean easy as in cheap. It's the prevailing view and it feels "fair" to a lot of people who didn't get so lucky or so far ahead in life, so they don't feel the need to be sympathetic. But it adds no value to the situation, so it's a pretty useless take. And it's not like the world has a limited supply of sympathy, so it's OK to offer it even in these situations.

        At this point I think the guy just needs help.

  • bawolff 4 hours ago

    Ego doesn't go away just because you made a bunch of money.

  • thatguy0900 4 hours ago

    Functionally infinite money seems to just not be enough in life for a lot of people. I honestly think if they weren't powerful it would be considered a serious mental illness.

    • linotype 4 hours ago

      Couldn’t have said it any better, thank you.

padiyar83 3 hours ago

> How would you react if someone demanded you pay them 8% of your annual revenue? Yeah. Like that.

If I built my product on the labour of that "someone", I would pay it. Seems these days, doing what's honourable is not that simple.

  • theamk 3 hours ago

    You are making it sound like it was a single person who could not pay their bills.

    It was not. That's a $7.5 billon company threatening $1 billion company over totally frivolous reasons.