[recursivegirth]

This is pretty on the nose considering Matt's latest blog post[1]. I feel for Matt in some regard, and I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty. However, I say that with not fully understanding the seperation of actions between Automattic the company and Matt in his own personal capacity.

[1] https://ma.tt/2024/12/drupalcon-singapore/

[duskwuff]

> I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty

1) This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision. An injunction which resets a situation to the former status quo pending a decision isn't all that unusual.

2) I don't think the issue here is so much a "warranty" as much as that Automattic (et al) set out to discriminate against WPEngine to obtain a business advantage. If Automattic wanted to shut down the WordPress plugin repository entirely, they'd be within their rights to do so. (It'd be business suicide, of course - but the point is that they could.)

[sidewndr46]

Given that OSS litigation typically spans decades an injunction might as well be a decision

[lolinder]

For the purpose of preventing action by the defendant, yes. For the purpose of setting binding precedent that affects the outcomes of other lawsuits, not at all.

[duskwuff]

The open source nature of WordPress is largely irrelevant to this case. Neither party is contesting the copyright status of WordPress or its plugins.

[kmeisthax]

>and I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty

If Matt hadn't tried to extort WP Engine he would have been perfectly within his right to say "large hosts have to pay to use the WordPress plugin directory". The injunction is purely about one specific company who was allegedly harmed by Automattic.

[jonnypants83]

I agree in general, but there's still a problem with encouraging people for decades to build businesses around a version of WP hardcoded to .org, not letting them "phone home," not making clear that they were building on a private company instead of a foundation with a clear mission statement, and then pulling the rug without notice. I don't think all of those steps would be legal, either.

[acdha]

The other lasting problem is that he completely destroyed the foundation’s credibility as an independent organization. I don’t see it retaining non-profit status unless he and his cronies are completely removed.

It’d make sense for a true non-profit to ask all hosting companies and other high volume users to help fund it, but if it’s not a fully-owned subsidiary of Automattic that’d be everyone, not just when he needs leverage against one company.

[junon]

> OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty

This injunction is against WPcom (a for profit entity) and not WPorg. Matt conducted tortious interference. This sets zero precedent on OSS maintainers.

[jcranmer]

> I do think the lawsuit sets a precedent that OSS developers are required to provide software with warranty.

Not really. The court order is to restore things to the status quo of 3 months ago, to require that Matt undo all of the things he specifically had to single out to do to fuck over WPEngine. If Matt hadn't specifically singled out WPEngine, and instead decided to stop providing the website to everybody, there wouldn't have been much of a case anyone could bring.

> However, I say that with not fully understanding the seperation of actions between Automattic the company and Matt in his own personal capacity.

As I understand it, everything Wordpress is Matt in three trenchcoats. Certainly, that's how he's pushing it in his defense filings in this lawsuit.

[throw16180339]

> However, I say that with not fully understanding the seperation of actions between Automattic the company and Matt in his own personal capacity.

Automattic and the Wordpress Foundation are both Matt's to use as he sees fit. There isn't a meaningful distinction between him and his organizations.