Comments on: It’s official, we’ve been blacklisted by Matt / WordPress

By: picxx

picxx — Wed, 10 Mar 2010 17:51:17 +0000

@new york I think you mix up OS’ with software right now. The OS’es of internet is now mostly apache, while most likely the most used software is wordpress. But as a designer can live withouth photoshop, a web developer can as well live withouth wordpress, fit and adapt to other software.

By: new york

new york — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 09:56:37 +0000

i think many are missing the point, and get caught up in the small picture. WordPress wants to be THE operating system of the internet, like microsoft is THE OS for computers, Google is the defact Search, WP will be the defacto OS for Internet where most published thoughts will be published through WP, all controlled by a single entity powered for free by the community. And to accomplish this goal WP needs to stay free for the time being or at least in the current shape of form, until in controls 70-80 % of the market share, much like google. And anyone that interferes and stands in the way of this goal will simply get their head chopped off or simply be ignored.

By: Truden

Truden — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 11:29:44 +0000

Matt wants to centralize the control over Wodrpress.
That includes shading all weblogs that get the attention of the WordPress community.
I gave up in the fight over the wordpress.mu domain name and just hand it over to Automattic.
Your case is different but sooner or later you’ll give up to :)

By: that girl again

that girl again — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:38:10 +0000

I think he’s trying to drive you into forking, and you’re almost certainly going to end up having to fork anyway because as far as Automattic are concerned MU is dead in the water. Somebody must have finally pointed out that handing wp.com code over to the community was against Automattic’s commercial interests.

By: Automattic, Those Champions of Open Source Are Moving WordPress.com To The M… « my mcLife

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:45:11 +0000

[...] Automattic’s and Mullenweg’s hypocrisy when in comes to open source has long been documented: the company likes nothing more than attacking those who dare profit from WordPress [...]

By: Boo-Hoo: Mullenweg calls foul while continuing to ignore WordPress Automattic Conflict of Interest

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 06:28:36 +0000

[...] James’ crime according to Mullenweg is that he both offers money for the development of, and sells (be it via a membership) premium WordPress plugins. We documented part of the spat here, and James has now been completely banned from WordPress.org sites (link.) [...]

By: Automattic, Those Champions of Open Source Are Moving WordPress.com To The Microsoft Cloud

Wed, 18 Nov 2009 23:08:00 +0000

[...] Automattic’s and Mullenweg’s hypocrisy when in comes to open source has long been documented: the company likes nothing more than attacking those who dare profit from WordPress [...]

By: Lessons Learned At WordCamp NYC 2009 » Literal Barrage

Lessons Learned At WordCamp NYC 2009 » Literal Barrage — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:09:38 +0000

[...] whom have developed business models on these flawed understandings. As you can imagine, significant drama has resulted (needlessly, in my [...]

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:10:38 +0000

A final thought on GPL:

No one can stop you from using code from a GPL, copyleft software. They have no recourse. That’s what its about. You can do anything you like with it… Except tell someone they can’t do what they want with it.

By: Ken

Ken — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:44:46 +0000

I think you all missed the point here. GPL is clear. That’s NOT the issue.

The issue is WordPress and MU are open-source projects. The community should have control of the projects. I would assume that also means the .org site. But it doesn’t. We have some say, we have some influence. Matt and Automattic have veto power, final say. That’s what’s bothering incsub.

GPL, free-software; These issues will resolve themselves. A business model is either effective or it’s not. An effective business model can survive free distribution of source code. Not an issue here.