'Automattic is Doing Open Source Dirty,' Ruby on Rails Creator Says
(Thursday October 10, 2024 @11:24AM (msmash)
from the closer-look dept.)
- Reference: 0175227373
- News link: https://news.slashdot.org/story/24/10/10/1524202/automattic-is-doing-open-source-dirty-ruby-on-rails-creator-says
- Source link:
David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Ruby on Rails and co-founder and chief technology officer of Basecamp-maker 37signals, has criticized Automattic's [1]demand for 8% of vendor WP Engine's revenues as a violation of open source principles and the GPL license. He argues this, among other things, [2]undermines the clarity and certainty of open source licensing , threatening its integrity beyond WordPress. He writes:
> Ruby on Rails, the open-source web framework I created, has been used to create businesses worth hundreds of billions of dollars combined. Some of those businesses express their gratitude and self-interest by supporting the framework with dedicated developers, membership of The Rails Foundation, or conference sponsorships. But many also do not! And that is absolutely their right, even if it occasionally irks a little.
>
> That's the deal. That's open source. I give you a gift of code, you accept the terms of the license. There cannot be a second set of shadow obligations that might suddenly apply, if you strike it rich using the software. Then the license is meaningless, the clarity all muddled, and certainty lost.
>
> Look, Automattic can change their license away from the GPL any time they wish. The new license will only apply to new code, though, and WP Engine, or anyone else, are eligible to fork the project. That's what happened with Redis after Redis Labs dropped their BSD license and went with a commercial source-available alternative. Valkey was forked from the last free Redis version, and now that's where anyone interested in an open-source Redis implementation is likely to go.
>
> But I suspect Automattic wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to retain WordPress' shine of open source, but also be able to extract their pound of flesh from any competitor that might appear, whenever they see fit. Screw that.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/10/03/1354214/wp-engine-sues-wordpress-for-libel-extortion
[2] https://world.hey.com/dhh/automattic-is-doing-open-source-dirty-b95cf128
> Ruby on Rails, the open-source web framework I created, has been used to create businesses worth hundreds of billions of dollars combined. Some of those businesses express their gratitude and self-interest by supporting the framework with dedicated developers, membership of The Rails Foundation, or conference sponsorships. But many also do not! And that is absolutely their right, even if it occasionally irks a little.
>
> That's the deal. That's open source. I give you a gift of code, you accept the terms of the license. There cannot be a second set of shadow obligations that might suddenly apply, if you strike it rich using the software. Then the license is meaningless, the clarity all muddled, and certainty lost.
>
> Look, Automattic can change their license away from the GPL any time they wish. The new license will only apply to new code, though, and WP Engine, or anyone else, are eligible to fork the project. That's what happened with Redis after Redis Labs dropped their BSD license and went with a commercial source-available alternative. Valkey was forked from the last free Redis version, and now that's where anyone interested in an open-source Redis implementation is likely to go.
>
> But I suspect Automattic wants to have their cake and eat it too. They want to retain WordPress' shine of open source, but also be able to extract their pound of flesh from any competitor that might appear, whenever they see fit. Screw that.
[1] https://yro.slashdot.org/story/24/10/03/1354214/wp-engine-sues-wordpress-for-libel-extortion
[2] https://world.hey.com/dhh/automattic-is-doing-open-source-dirty-b95cf128
If you want to exploit open-source then shaft it (Score:2)
the best way if Google's way.
Just look at Android: when Google first released it, it was entirely open source. Manufacturers flocked to it, developers massively adopted it, and Google eventually gained a majority market share in the mobile device space.
Then, when their dominance was well established, Google slowly moved open-source code away from AOSP and into their very much closed-source Google Play Services framework.
And look at AOSP now: it's a shadow of its former self. The strictly open-source Android