This is a problem unique to Open Source because the root problem itself is baked into OSS and Free Software.
The very foundation of Free Software is the idea that a user can do whatever they like, are given the source code, and pass those freedoms on to their users. There are no protections offered to the developer, and that is not a bug it's the explicit point of the model.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this model. But the model is what it is.
Word Press is unhappy that WP Engine is using the software exactly as the license allows.
Drupal has created a parallel organisation which monitors and rewards participation. This doesn't "solve" the problem, it just adds a commercial and administrative layer.
Proprietary software solved the problem by not being Open Source. Others have adopted a "source available" license, which may come with restrictions.
In other words, lots of people have solved the problem simply by not being "open source" (not necessarily by closing the source, but rather by restricting usage.)
Word Press are picking a fight with a user, who is using it exactly as they licensed it.
If Word Press don't like the rules of the game then they can change the rules. That is 100% under their control. But don't use the "common rule book" then complain when the other team plays to the rules.
Although I agree with what you say, that seems to be mischaricterising the blog post - he is talking about the community rather than the software.
It is a bit like free speech and ideologies like communism. Do I support the right of people to spread communist messages? Yes. Do I support them in doing so? No. Indeed, I would pick a fight with them on the subject - it just happens that suppressing them by censorship is a bad strategy. Similarly, the Drupal Association seems to be supporting the general freedom of all software users but the people it actually supports is a much smaller group.
The specifics might not work, but building a community isn't related to the license of a piece of software.
I don't really understand the premise of these types of write-ups — the software has a license, and people and companies use it accordingly.
I understand most core software was started long ago as a one-person project and given a FOSS license. Due to the license, it grew from the work of hundreds or thousands who contributed, but the license no longer serves the authors' worldview.
It seems to me all the contributors implicitly approve of this situation, as they contribute labor while knowing what the license is.
I think the article clearly states the problem: It encourages contributors to stop contributing and become "takers", and once there are not enough makers, the product and entire ecosystem dies. A classic tragedy of the commons.
* There's nothing wrong per se with being a Taker - (assuming a broad definition of "profit") the vast majority of individual users certainly fall into this category. The problem is only when the Taker's actions harm the Maker ecosystem.
* Regarding a credit system, one problem that jumps out at me is - how do you quantify work on a plugin? Do you attempt to scale by what fraction of users uses that plugin? What about a plugin that's widely used, but many of its users are customers of your hosting company?
Does this really solve the problem? The article doesn’t really provide statistics, but why would WP Engine suddenly increase contributions to get listed on the WordPress homepage? Is that an important marketing tool for them?
Some Drupal users only contracting with contributors likely does solve a lot of the problem. How they made that happen, I don't know.
The marketing surely also helps, not sure how relevant it is for WP Engine though and how willing WordPress would be to do that given the very direct competition with Automattic.
This all stems from people of certain backgrounds expecting everyone to be a good citizen, more or less.
If your intentions are not clearly spelled out somewhere, then somebody is absolutely going to use your thing in a way that you did not intend.
What complicates matters even further is that the original license reflected some youthful idealism and optimism. In the meantime the maintainer(s) worldview evolved but they forgot to encode that in a new license. Pretty classic mistake, it seems.
Less idealism and more formalities solve that problem. Mostly. Though good luck suing the big companies if they violate the license.
This is a problem unique to Open Source because the root problem itself is baked into OSS and Free Software.
The very foundation of Free Software is the idea that a user can do whatever they like, are given the source code, and pass those freedoms on to their users. There are no protections offered to the developer, and that is not a bug it's the explicit point of the model.
There are advantages and disadvantages to this model. But the model is what it is.
Word Press is unhappy that WP Engine is using the software exactly as the license allows.
Drupal has created a parallel organisation which monitors and rewards participation. This doesn't "solve" the problem, it just adds a commercial and administrative layer.
Proprietary software solved the problem by not being Open Source. Others have adopted a "source available" license, which may come with restrictions.
In other words, lots of people have solved the problem simply by not being "open source" (not necessarily by closing the source, but rather by restricting usage.)
Word Press are picking a fight with a user, who is using it exactly as they licensed it.
If Word Press don't like the rules of the game then they can change the rules. That is 100% under their control. But don't use the "common rule book" then complain when the other team plays to the rules.
They can't change the rules of the game because WordPress itself is a fork. [0]
This is GPL working exactly as it's designed to do, ensuring whoever forks the software must allow others to do the same.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress
Although I agree with what you say, that seems to be mischaricterising the blog post - he is talking about the community rather than the software.
It is a bit like free speech and ideologies like communism. Do I support the right of people to spread communist messages? Yes. Do I support them in doing so? No. Indeed, I would pick a fight with them on the subject - it just happens that suppressing them by censorship is a bad strategy. Similarly, the Drupal Association seems to be supporting the general freedom of all software users but the people it actually supports is a much smaller group.
The specifics might not work, but building a community isn't related to the license of a piece of software.
I don't really understand the premise of these types of write-ups — the software has a license, and people and companies use it accordingly. I understand most core software was started long ago as a one-person project and given a FOSS license. Due to the license, it grew from the work of hundreds or thousands who contributed, but the license no longer serves the authors' worldview. It seems to me all the contributors implicitly approve of this situation, as they contribute labor while knowing what the license is.
I think the article clearly states the problem: It encourages contributors to stop contributing and become "takers", and once there are not enough makers, the product and entire ecosystem dies. A classic tragedy of the commons.
This is the most amazing part for me:
> Drupal users like Pfizer and the State of Georgia only allow Makers to apply in their vendor selection process.
I wonder how they managed to convince companies to add such a requirement, but it's amazing!
Two immediate thoughts on this:
* There's nothing wrong per se with being a Taker - (assuming a broad definition of "profit") the vast majority of individual users certainly fall into this category. The problem is only when the Taker's actions harm the Maker ecosystem.
* Regarding a credit system, one problem that jumps out at me is - how do you quantify work on a plugin? Do you attempt to scale by what fraction of users uses that plugin? What about a plugin that's widely used, but many of its users are customers of your hosting company?
Does this really solve the problem? The article doesn’t really provide statistics, but why would WP Engine suddenly increase contributions to get listed on the WordPress homepage? Is that an important marketing tool for them?
Some Drupal users only contracting with contributors likely does solve a lot of the problem. How they made that happen, I don't know.
The marketing surely also helps, not sure how relevant it is for WP Engine though and how willing WordPress would be to do that given the very direct competition with Automattic.
This all stems from people of certain backgrounds expecting everyone to be a good citizen, more or less.
If your intentions are not clearly spelled out somewhere, then somebody is absolutely going to use your thing in a way that you did not intend.
What complicates matters even further is that the original license reflected some youthful idealism and optimism. In the meantime the maintainer(s) worldview evolved but they forgot to encode that in a new license. Pretty classic mistake, it seems.
Less idealism and more formalities solve that problem. Mostly. Though good luck suing the big companies if they violate the license.