The Makers and Takers of WordPress  ## Metadata - Author: [[InfoWorld]] - Full Title: The Makers and Takers of WordPress - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: [wordpress, open_source, legal_disputes, automattic, wpengine, maker_vs_taker] - #wordpress - #open_source - #legal_disputes - #automattic - #wpengine - #maker_vs_taker Author: [Infoworld Contributor] Source: [Infoworld](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3621811/the-makers-and-takers-of-wordpress.html/amp/) Reference: Published December 11, 2024 date created: 2024-12-12 13:30 --- # Title: The Makers and Takers of WordPress ## Table of Contents:  - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#️-notes) - [📖 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) --- ## 📝 Summary: This article examines the ongoing legal and ethical debate surrounding WordPress's open-source ecosystem, particularly focusing on the conflict between Automattic and WP Engine. Framed as a "Maker vs. Taker" issue, it discusses Automattic’s role in building WordPress and WP Engine’s utilization of the platform for profit without significant contribution back. The piece highlights the broader challenges of sustaining open-source software when significant financial stakes are involved. --- ## 📖 Main Content: ### 🗒️ Notes: - **Overview of Open Source**: - Open-source software provides immense value but comes with inherent challenges in sustainability. - The GPL license encourages sharing and reuse but has been tested by modern cloud-hosting models. - **Automattic vs. WP Engine**: - Automattic ("Maker") develops and sustains WordPress. - WP Engine ("Taker") profits from hosting services without equivalent contributions back. - While WP Engine’s actions are legal under GPL, Automattic alleges trademark violations. - **Ethical Considerations**: - The article argues for a moral obligation to contribute back to open-source projects. - It suggests that companies like WP Engine could donate resources to the WordPress Foundation. - **Broader Implications**: - Open-source licensing allows taking without giving, but the community ethos encourages contributions. - Conflicts arise when the financial stakes and contributions are misaligned. ### 📖 References: - [Infoworld Article](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3621811/the-makers-and-takers-of-wordpress.html/amp/) --- ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1. Open-source software thrives on collaboration and shared benefits, but conflicts emerge when large financial gains are made without contributions back to the community. 2. Automattic argues WP Engine benefits from WordPress's ecosystem without equivalent moral or financial contributions, challenging the balance of the GPL ethos. --- ## 📰 Newsletter: 🌐 **The Maker vs. Taker Debate in WordPress** WordPress’s open-source ethos is under scrutiny in a conflict between Automattic and WP Engine. As WP Engine profits from WordPress hosting, questions arise about its contributions to the community. Should companies benefiting from open source give back? Dive into the details of this heated debate. [Read more](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3621811/the-makers-and-takers-of-wordpress.html/amp/). --- ## ✅ Action Items: - **Open Source Education**: Advocate for increased awareness about ethical obligations in open-source ecosystems. - **Community Engagement**: Create programs encouraging companies to give back through sponsorship or development contributions. - **Sustainability Strategies**: Develop models for open-source projects to balance financial benefits with community contributions. --- ## 🧪 Hypotheses: 1. Increasing community sponsorship initiatives leads to greater contributions from for-profit users of open-source platforms. 2. Ethical guidelines for open-source contributions improve relationships between makers and takers. ### 📊 Methodology: - **Surveys**: Assess community attitudes toward the moral obligations of companies benefiting from open-source platforms. - **Case Studies**: Analyze outcomes in projects where contributors implemented mandatory contribution models. ### ❓ Questions: - How can open-source projects incentivize contributions without restricting use? - What governance models prevent exploitation of open-source ecosystems? ### 🔮 Future Research: - Explore frameworks for licensing that balance community values with financial realities. - Study long-term impacts of "taker" behavior on open-source project sustainability. --- ### 💡 Implications: By fostering collaborative ecosystems and encouraging ethical contributions, open-source projects can balance financial benefits and community sustainability. --- ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment: - **Visual**: Add flowcharts illustrating the Maker vs. Taker dynamic. - **Aural**: Provide discussions or webinars on ethical contributions to open source. - **Logical**: Include detailed analyses of how financial models impact open-source sustainability. --- ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment: - **Alt-text**: Ensure all diagrams and charts have descriptive alt-text. - **Contrast**: Use high-contrast visuals for clarity. --- ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment: - **Cultural Relevance**: Showcase global perspectives on open-source contributions. - **Inclusive Language**: Avoid technical jargon to make the content accessible to a wider audience. --- ### ✅ Logical Validity: - **Strengths**: Presents a balanced view of legal and ethical considerations. - **Weaknesses**: Lacks specific data or examples of companies successfully addressing this issue. - **Suggestions**: Include case studies of companies that exemplify ethical contribution models. --- ### 🔍 DARVO Analysis: - **Deny**: No outright denial of WP Engine's rights under GPL but implied criticism of its moral stance. - **Attack**: Suggests WP Engine exploits the community ethos for profit. - **Reverse**: Positions Automattic as protecting community values against corporate exploitation. --- ### 🔍 SEO Evaluation: - **Keywords**: Strong use of "WordPress," "open source," and "Maker vs. Taker." - **Improvements**: Add meta descriptions emphasizing the ethical debate. --- ## 🎯 Conclusion: The Maker vs. Taker debate highlights the complexities of sustaining open-source projects in a world of significant financial interests. Striking a balance between legal rights and community ethics is critical for the future of open source. - Document Tags: [[injunction]] [[lawsuit]] [[Matt Mullenweg]] [[WordPress]] [[wpdrama]] [[wp engine]] - Summary: It was bound to happen. There was just too much money involved. - URL: https://search.app/YsCVrwuYV96hj3249 #### It was bound to happen. There was just too much money involved. Credit: Maderla / Shutterstock The idea of [open-source software](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3429076/what-is-open-source-software-open-source-and-foss-explained.html) seems kind of nuts. Millions (billions?) of lines of code doing all kinds of amazing things and available for free? That sounds too good to be true. But it is true. Between me writing this article and you reading it lies a whole lot of software that the people and companies using it didn’t pay for. The most famous open-source project is the Linux operating system. I’m old enough to remember when Linux appeared, and soon took on then-dominant Unix as the software running the internet. Released in the early 1990s, [Linux came to dominate the internet](https://www.zdnet.com/home-and-office/networking/can-the-internet-exist-without-linux/) by 2015. It’s not even remotely a stretch to say that the internet wouldn’t exist as it does today without Linux. The success of Linux led to many other open-source projects, ranging from major, internet-wide systems to small component sets. The first open-source license was the GNU General Public License (GPL), a “copyleft” license that requires downstream users of GPL code to open their own source code under the GPL. But soon less restrictive licenses appeared, and open-source software became commonplace. #### In search of a business model But as any economist will tell you, there is no such thing as a free operating system. All software, both open source and closed source, has costs, and most of those costs are taken up by people writing and improving the system. All of those lines of code took humans time to write, and yet the software remains free to use. That’s a really good deal for many, many people. But it requires a lot of goodwill to be sustainable. It’s not entirely clear what the right business model for open source should be. It was originally thought that organizations could give away the software and charge for their expertise and support. One of the original hesitancies about using open source was the lack of “someone to call and yell at when things went wrong” and this model solved that problem. But apart from Red Hat, few companies have made this model work. The rise of [software as a service](https://www.infoworld.com/article/3226386/what-is-saas-software-as-a-service-defined.html) changed things rather dramatically. The SaaS model allows a company to take open-source software, provide it in an easy-to-use form, and charge money for it, all at a very large scale. This seemed okay when startups were doing it. But Amazon soon realized it could use open-source software to provide any number of managed services on AWS, and make a lot of money using projects like [Elasticsearch](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2270906/elastic-keeps-ticking.html) and [Redis](https://www.infoworld.com/article/2336563/the-bizarre-defense-of-trillion-dollar-cabals.html). Both of these projects ended up changing their licensing to try to solve the [Maker vs. Taker problem](https://dri.es/balancing-makers-and-takers-to-scale-and-sustain-open-source). I suspect they won’t be the last projects to make such changes. #### Automattic vs. WP Engine And now we have the battle over WordPress, between Automattic and WP Engine, two WordPress hosting companies. I am not privy to all the details, and I don’t want to get into the personalities involved or make judgments about specific actions taken, but it is pretty clear that Automattic is a Maker and WP Engine is a Taker. That is, Automattic is interested in “making” WordPress, i.e. building and contributing to the WordPress project, and WP Engine is interested in “taking” WordPress, i.e. using the free software to make money from WordPress hosting services. It is not a violation of the [WordPress license](https://wordpress.org/about/license/) (GPLv2) to do what WP Engine is doing. It is perfectly legal. In fact, “taking” has been highly encouraged from the very start of the open-source movement. After all, sharing software, and benefiting from shared software, was the whole idea. Free use of software was a desirable outcome of the GPL, though the writers of the license probably didn’t foresee the scale of cloud hosting and the large sums of money that would be involved. Automattic has taken legal action against WP Engine over trademark violations concerning the use of the name WordPress. (Apparently, the right to use the WordPress trademark for commercial purposes is [owned by Automattic](https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-legal-perspective/).) Certainly, the WordPress trademark has value. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know much about how trademarks work, but I do understand the notion of open source. It’s not at all surprising to me that many people who have contributed to open-source software get upset when others take their “baby” and use it to make cash. #### Free to take, obligated to give back Is WP Engine legally obligated to give back? No. But are they morally obligated? I think so. I think that we all are obligated to give *something* back to at least a few of the open-source projects we use. Individuals can, through programs like [GitHub Sponsor](https://github.com/sponsors), give a few dollars a month to projects they particularly value. Software development companies might consider doing the same on a larger scale. I don’t see why a company making as much money as WP Engine can’t donate, say, a developer’s yearly salary to the [WordPress Foundation](https://wordpressfoundation.org/). Open-source software has transformed the software business. It has provided an enormous amount of value to all software developers. Most of that value comes from the “share and share alike” ethos that we all learned as kids. But any time so much value can be had for free, a price will be paid somewhere. Sometimes that price will involve hurt feelings and protestations of unfairness. Ultimately, though, a deal is a deal, and a license is a license. Maybe the ultimate price open source must pay is the acceptance of people taking advantage of the generosity that makes open source so great., The Makers and Takers of WordPress, InfoWorld, 01jevjnymkpps2q26sdn334yt3.