> he is allowed as long as they follow GPLv2, which is the case with WP Engine.

Unless I missed something, no one claimed it's not legal.

There are lots of things that are legal but nonetheless not nice.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean you can't say "that's not nice" or "you shouldn't be doing that".

"It's legal" is not an argument here. It's completely besides the point.

He is allowed to say that, but not in the project's site, less alone without a previous discussion with the community which, AFAIK, didn't happen.

Why not? Is there some set of community rules about it?

I dunno, I think its pretty acceptable for FOSS project leaders to call out behavior they don't like, even if it is technically legal. That's sort of the point of moral leadership, right? I do wonder to what extent this blog post is a preamble to a trademark lawsuit, which might be a bridge too far.

It could be if the leader didn't gained anything by pointing out a bad behavior in the ecosystem, which isn't the case for Matt. He runs a direct competitor to WP Engine.

I think it’s fair for the creator of the product (WP) to criticize competition that undermines a feature he considers important to him. He also makes a very important point about WPEngine not contributing back to the AGPLv2 codebase you are talking about.

> I think it’s fair for the creator of the product (WP) to criticize competition that undermines a feature he considers important to him

That his own product ALSO gates access to, unless you pay the top tier for?

I don't think it's fair to criticize the competition for that, and not acknowledge that you do the same, no.

How is it gated on Wordpress.com? Here are the docs:

https://wordpress.org/documentation/article/revisions/

That's the open source project. WordPress.com, Matt's for-profit venture, gates revisions (and statistics, and plugins) behind a higher paying tier.

> The point is: if Satan themselves decides to use and make a profit off based on WordPress, he is allowed as long as they follow GPLv2, which is the case with WP Engine.

To use your own logic, if the founder of a FOSS project leader wants to have a conflict of interest (which is a negatively biased framing of them earning a living off their two decades of hard work), they’re allowed to. If they want to criticize someone else making money off that project, they’re allowed to. It is downright bizarre that you think it is acceptable that “Satan” can profit off Wordpress but with the creator of Wordpress you suddenly take issue with a “conflict of interest”.

To further use your own logic: Is Matt violating the GPLv2? No. OK, then why are you whining about him? He has the same freedoms that you ascribe to WP Engine or others. It just looks like you’re carrying water for an evil private equity firm with a long track record of being evil. All to attack someone who actually created a massive positive impact on the world. Yea no thanks - no one is convinced by this weird demand that Matt needs to step down.

I never said he violated GPLv2. I'm just saying that his behavior is damaging the project. As a leader, he's bonded to a responsibility to guide and nurture the community. Attacking a participant of said community for no reason (or a pathetic one, like the revisions stuff) is not what most expect from a good leader.

It's not a pathetic reason. I'm 100% on Mullenweg's side here. The DNA of WordPress is to keep revisions of everything.

You may not care about the history of your website, many people do.

I guess access to plugins is way more WP DNA than post revisions, and yet Matt's own WordPress.com restricts access to plugins to more expensive tiers only. (Not to mention the “confusion” he mentions regarding WP Engine, which is explicit with WordPress/WordPress.com.)

It also costs very little in DB for the vast majority of users, so it’s a classic case of Private Equity squeezing money from their product.

I don't understand who's being hurt here. Are you asking me to feel sympathy for a private equity company?