[shprd]

> Suggesting they're not contributing is disingenuous.

Where did I say they don't contribute? I said they don't contribute beyond their mouth

> You don't see the non-premium version of ACF as contributing?

It's a marketing strategy, first and foremost. If they didn't offer it, an alternative would come along and attract the crowd.

You know what's disingenuous? Claiming it's a contribution when you're doing it as marketing strategy or as part of sales funnel.

You can't cash a check twice.

[mtndew4brkfst]

So if I go successfully make a feature addition to ie Kubernetes, or the Linux kernel, and it is exclusively motivated by furthering my business needs instead of altruism, but happens to incidentally benefit others too - do you consider that a "contribution" under your mental model? If not, what's the distinction?

[shprd]

> make a feature addition to ie Kubernetes, or the Linux kernel

In your example, you're contributing to other people projects so yes it would be contribution right of the bat. That's completely different than the case with ACF.

[mtndew4brkfst]

And WPEngine does not own Wordpress or its ecosystem, right? So that's also "other people's projects" if they produce something of value to its ends users?

[shprd]

> if they produce something of value to its ends users?

No, that's would be their value proposition or what every company on earth have been doing since inception, filling a gap in the market.

You seem to be claiming that their mere existence in the ecosystem would be a contribution, even if they were closed source. They would be providing value and attracting users in a butterfly effect style. Sure, that help and have a positive impact but is it a contribution to an open source project and the ecosystem?

My model is fairly simple, you can't claim credit for something if you did it involuntarily or with a different intention or it happened as n-level side effect of what you are trying to do.

[chiefalchemist]

> It's a marketing strategy

And what makes Automattic's contributions any different? They "steer" the product to their benefit and sell that as what's good for them is good for all.

That's rubbish.

It's not contributing to "the cause" when the features you add are solely for your own benefit. Not that self-serving is wrong. But to sell it as benevolent red lines any decent bullshit detector.

Matt defined the license. Now he regrets that and he wants a cut. Nuttin wrong with that. But to sell it otherwise is shite. We're not that stupid.

[shprd]

> And what makes Automattic's contributions any different?

Well, unlike WPEngine, Automattic and Matt make significant contribution beyond their ecosystem, here are some:

- Let's encrypt: https://letsencrypt.org/sponsors/

- Matrix's open protocol: https://matrix.org/

- The PHP Foundation: https://thephp.foundation/

- Open Source Initiative: https://opensource.org/

- And the list goes on: contributing and sponsoring many projects and developers that everyone using the web benefited from, including you and billions of people (not counting wordpress's impact)

Please educate yourself before spreading FUD about people who made great contributions constantly to the open web, the entire industry, and promoted open source on every chance they got.

[chiefalchemist]

You left out Matt & Co partnering with privacy-crusher Google, and other "f*k the users this partnership is good for Automattic and my pockets" deals and decisions. And what about his anti-accessibility transgressions (with Gutenberg).

Matt championing himself as benevolent and using OSS as a shield is BS. No one is expecting him - or anyone - to be perfect. But he and his hypocrisy has jumped the shark.