this post was submitted on 12 Oct 2023
361 points (98.9% liked)

Fediverse

27490 readers
706 users here now

A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it's related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).

If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!

Rules

Learn more at these websites: Join The Fediverse Wiki, Fediverse.info, Wikipedia Page, The Federation Info (Stats), FediDB (Stats), Sub Rehab (Reddit Migration), Search Lemmy

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
361
WordPress.com blogs can now be followed on Mastodon and other federated platforms | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)
submitted 10 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
32 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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".

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Founadi, Hykes and Pahl founded "Docker Engine" and did not spin it out of their company "Docker Inc." as a separate non-profit

That's literally my point. Docker doesn't pretend to be a non-profit, WordPress does.

Sorry, but I think this applies to you more than it does to me.

What a blowhard way of saying the most childish response of "no u".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

That’s literally my point. Docker doesn’t pretend to be a non-profit, WordPress does.

Your ‘points’ were:

  1. [Automattic] intentionally leads people to conflate the free and open-source software WordPress (WordPress.org) and their own proprietary and overpriced version.
  2. [WordPress.org and WordPress.com] are not the same people.

I’ve already provided rebuttals to both points:

  1. Most companies doing open source lead people to conflate their free and open source software with their own proprietary version.
  2. 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):

  1. WordPress ‘pretends’ to be a non-profit.

To humor you I shall also provide a rebuttal to this third point:

  1. 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.

By the way… WP.org goes out of its way to recommend various hosting providers beside WP.com.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
  1. Most companies doing open source lead people to conflate their free and open source software with their own proprietary version.

No, other companies make it very clear considering that there is no non-profit organization when it's all controlled under one for-profit entity. You have not provided a single example of anything similar of a non-profit organization being used to benefit a for-profit organization because it is illegal.

  1. Both are quite literally led by the same person, and have been since their founding

Yes. That is the fucking problem. A non-profit is used to unfairly benefit a specific for-profit business. That is illegal and unethical.

WordPress.org is run by a non-profit. WordPress.com is run a separate for-profit entity. That is what I have been saying. WordPress.org gives preferential treatment because they allow a separate entity to use their trademarks while explicitly not letting others do the same.