
Dear Matt Mullenweg: An Open Letter from Wix.com’s CEO Avishai Abrahami - yoava
http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-letter-from-wix-coms-ceo-avishai-abrahami/
======
weinzierl
This response still doesn't address the core issue:

The Wix mobile App uses GPL code but the rest of the source code of the app
has not been made public so far as required by the GPL. At least they missed
to add a written offer to distribute the source code. If they will publish the
source if someone requests it has to be seen.

When it comes to attribution it gets more difficult. As far as I understand
the code from Wordpress is under plain vanilla GPL 2 without any supplements
[1], so attribution is not required.

[1] [https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-
iOS/blo...](https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-
iOS/blob/develop/LICENSE)

EDIT: If anything, this whole controversy shows one thing: Open source
licenses (particularly the GPL) are still not widely understood.

(I assume ignorance on WIX's side).

~~~
mbesto
From the lead developer:

[https://medium.com/@talkol/how-i-found-myself-accused-of-
ste...](https://medium.com/@talkol/how-i-found-myself-accused-of-stealing-
code-from-wordpress-a7350da9f9f2#.wym6nvgmv)

> I know some developers are scared of using GPL, apparently for a pretty good
> reason. The WordPress GPL Rich Text component in question, is actually a
> wrapper around another Rich Text component named ZSSRichTextEditor which is
> licensed MIT. In retrospect it would have been easier to use it directly.

[https://github.com/nnhubbard/ZSSRichTextEditor](https://github.com/nnhubbard/ZSSRichTextEditor)

[https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-
iOS](https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS)

So, Wix built a wrapper for a GPL piece of code, which was just a wrapper for
a MIT piece of code. According to this tweet[0], the only thing Wix needs to
do is to assign a GPL license to their code...but alas IANAL.

[0] -
[https://twitter.com/nitrogen/status/792486850845773824](https://twitter.com/nitrogen/status/792486850845773824)

EDIT - From the OP's blog:

> When you embed and use GPL code, you have to release the entire thing as
> GPL. (That’s why it’s called a viral license.) So they need to release not
> just their changes to the editor, but the entire app that was distributed.

~~~
edsouza
The WordPress-Editor-iOS GPL license should be invalid, because it includes
the sources from the ZSSRichTextEditor project which is MIT licensed.

Which specifically has a clause:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all
copies or substantial portions of the Software.

edit: reading the readme.md in the WordPress-Editor-iOS project, they list the
following projects that were used in the codebase:

    
    
      ZSSRichTextEditor (License MIT)
      CYRTextView (License MIT)
      HRColorPicker (License BSD)
      jQuery (License MIT)
      JS Beautifier (License MIT)
    

Instead of retaining of the licenses for the projects. They removed the
licenses, and replace it with the GPL license.

IANAL - I think that is not how you re-license someone elses project.

~~~
protomyth
Are you saying that someone took MIT licensed source code, removed the
copyright, and then licensed it under GPL?

[edit: I guess with your edit that is exactly what you are saying, so how can
it be legal to pull that stunt?]

~~~
timdorr
Yes, that is exactly what they did: [https://github.com/wordpress-
mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/com...](https://github.com/wordpress-
mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/commit/3fb089aec656f99e35447ca21ace89eea254181a)

~~~
edsouza
Good find.

Any source file found before Mar 20, 2015 should be covered by Neil Stoker's
copyright and the MIT license. This includes WordPress derived code.

~~~
vbernat
MIT license doesn't cover derived code. Only attribution is needed.

~~~
jacquesm
But that doesn't mean you can strip out the license either.

~~~
smarx007
Well, you can relicense the MIT-licensed code. They might have had to include
_the text_ of the MIT-licensed component license, but that would still have no
effect on the license of the derivative work - it would be GPL.

~~~
jacquesm
That license change would only apply to the changes and additions, any of the
original code would still be MIT licensed, also if the changes are trivial
then the whole re-license might fall through.

Copyright would still lie with the original authors as well, after all sub-
licensing allows you to pass on the rights that you already have, but does not
give you any new rights.

Since the MIT license is mostly a super-set of the GPL you will lose some of
the MIT parts if you sublicense but if you wish to gain more rights than what
the MIT license already provides you with it will likely not work when tested
in court. The best way to deal with stuff like this is to stick to the
original license unless you have consulted with an IP lawyer that signed off
on your plan, it is very easy to get these things subtly wrong.

~~~
photomatt
There were over 1000+ commits made in over a year -- all of those changes and
improvements are GPL. (You can make GPL mods to MIT code and release those all
as GPL.) If Wix had used the original ZSSRichTextEditor they would have been
fine, but they didn't.

The key thing to understand is that being “compatible” with the GPL means that
you can take code written under an MIT license , and put a GPL license on it
if you want to. The MIT license allows for this, but, the reverse is not true.
The GPL does not allow you to take GPL code and change the license to MIT, and
it definitely doesn't allow you to take open GPL code, and make it
proprietary.

------
pavlov
_" Yes, we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the
application (that is the concept of open source right?), and everything we
improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source ..."_

That is not the concept of the GPL though. They need to release the source for
the entire derived work, not just that one component. It's not Wix's choice --
it's required by the license, and the act of incorporating code under that
license makes them bound by it.

For a letter written by a CEO, this one seems strangely oblivious to the real
issues. Did he run it through the legal department at all? (Presumably not,
since it's the weekend.)

Abrahami writes: "If you believe that we need to give you credit" \-- but
that's not the issue at hand. It gives the impression that he doesn't
understand the differences between open source licenses, and that can be a
serious liability for a company that builds so heavily on other people's code.

[Edit] I actually wish the GPL were finally tested in court, because that
would resolve a long-standing question around its enforceability. The CEO of
Wix admitted that the derived work in this case contains "more than 3 million
lines of code"... The copyright owner of the GPL'd module could sue them to
have all that released under the GPL, and (assuming Wix wouldn't comply) then
we would finally know if the license holds up in court or not.

~~~
tzs
> The CEO of Wix admitted that the derived work in this case contains "more
> than 3 million lines of code"... The copyright owner of the GPL'd module
> could sue them to have all that released under the GPL, and (assuming Wix
> wouldn't comply) then we would finally know if the license holds up in court
> or not.

The copyright owner would win, but all they would likely get out of the court
is an injunction stopping Wix from distributing the infringing product and
monetary damages. They would probably not be able to force Wix to release
source code.

If the GPL code is just a wrapper around MIT licensed code, as has been
claimed, Wix should be able to quickly change their code to use that MIT code
directly instead of using WordPress' GPL wrapper.

~~~
pavlov
That would still be a major victory for the GPL. To my knowledge it has never
been tested in court in the USA.

Everyone knows that the GPL is being commonly violated by companies that just
don't care and developers who don't understand it. Any US legal precedent
around GPL would be welcome.

~~~
nkuttler
WordPress isn't even properly GPL-licensed. No license in the top-level app
file [1] [2]. The included license file doesn't selectively attach itself to
all relevant files, and not to source files that have a different license [3].
WordPress contains copyrighted material that's definitely not GPL-compatible
[4], so even if the previous points are considered irrelevant, it remains
questionable if the source can be distributed under the terms of the GPL at
all [5].

[1]
[https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/index.php](https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/index.php)

[2] [https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
howto.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.en.html)

[3]
[https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/license.t...](https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/license.txt)

[4] [https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp-
conten...](https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blob/master/wp-
content/plugins/hello.php)

[5]
[https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html)
See term 7.

~~~
fourthark
Copyrighted song lyrics are not gpl compatible? Well, hmm. Do you have a
better example, say of included _code_ under an incompatible license?

~~~
pluma
The bigger problem is that the lyrics are probably in direct violation of
copyright unless they were used with permission. They shouldn't be part of the
GPL code unless the copyright holder has permitted that too.

As it stands there semm to be two readings from this: 1) the plugin is not
part of the GPL code and de-facto unlicensed ("All rights reserved"), meaning
the plugin can not be included in GPL redistributions of Wordpress; or 2) the
plugin is part of the code and the code is therefore not eligible to be
distributed under the GPL in the first place.

------
gk1
The post being referenced: [https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-
gpl/](https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/)

~~~
gnicholas
Thx for posting. Seeing that this wasn't linked in the "Dear Matt" letter made
me wonder if it was left off accidentally or on purpose.

IMO, it looks like the response didn't really address the core complaint of
the original letter. Not conclusive, but makes it seem less like an accident.

~~~
unreal37
Neither the CEO or the developer linked to the original. That's definitely on
purpose.

------
zachruss92
Yea, this is a question of GPL Licensing and Matt is right. WordPress and
Automattic have both been huge proponents of open source and without GPL
existing I would not be able to make a living (as well as the millions of
software engineers in the world who use OSS every day).

The GPL is pretty clear about using GPL software and creating derivative work
(i.e. an iOS app that, in part, uses GPL Licensed code) then distributing it
to others, that you have to also include the source code along with the GPL
license.

Wix should just open source the app and put an end to this - as it's obvious
that they're violating the terms of the license.

~~~
stale2002
Well, or they could just stop using the GPL code.

~~~
davexunit
They still need to comply with the GPL for the software they have released to
date.

------
potatosareok
What the hell is this these are companies that make millions of dollars a year
arguing on the weekend with public blog posts. This is what lawyers are for. I
automatically assume if you try to argue online you're in the wrong and are
counting on public opinion to save you.

~~~
eadz
Not even lawyers, just raise it as an issue and try to work something out
before yelling "Stealing Code" all over the internet.

There are so many packages, libraries & dependencies out there that missing a
GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose.

~~~
pluma
> missing a GPL requirement doesn't imply it was done on purpose

This doesn't sound like the typical "junior dev who doesn't understand
licenses added a GPL dependency" situation. Especially considering Wix's
reply.

If you're arguing that nobody at Wix understands the implication of software
licensing you're arguing all of their senior developers are unfit to hold
senior positions.

A basic understanding of software licenses (i.e. at least Unlicense/CC0 vs
MIT/BSD/Apache2 vs LGPL vs GPL/AGPL) is one of the first things I expect every
junior developer to learn when working on a company product that involves
third-party code.

This is either a rookie mistake (in which case Wix should have owned up to it
and fixed it), malice or ignorance. And I'm not sure ignorance would save them
any more respect than malice.

------
pulse7
WordPress has GPL license and not LGPL! This means that if Wix uses/links ANY
part of WordPress, the whole Wix should be under GPL license and source code
must be made public because Wix is distributed and not used internally only
(GPLv2,
[http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/15878...](http://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/158789/can-
i-link-to-a-gpl-library-from-a-closed-source-application))

~~~
wav-part
How about linking to your own wrapper library which would be custom licensed
in addition to GPL ?

closed_binary (closed) --> libW (GPL+custom) --> Wordpress (GPL)

~~~
TD-Linux
libW in this case would pretty clearly be a derived work in this case, so
would also need to carry the GPL license.

~~~
wav-part
True but libW also has custom licence relieving closed_binary from make-it-gpl
requirement. Unless GPL forbids libW to be anything but GPL'd.

~~~
pluma
That's why it's called a "viral" license. If your code directly links GPL
code, your code is now GPL code too.

This is different from the non-viral LGPL (and MIT/BSD/whatever) which permits
linking without "infecting" the linking code.

There's a handy workaround that is 1) never actually distributing the linking
code or 2) putting the code behind a network interface and talking to that
instead of linking to the code itself.

Both of these mean you're not "distributing" the infected code, so the
requirement to publish the source code is not triggered. The second workaround
is addressed by the Affero GPL which also requires source code to be published
as an interface rather than as a distributed binary.

~~~
wav-part
I was already aware what you have posted which ofcourse did not answered my
question. What I came to know _now_ is, from GPL-3.0/5.c

> This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but
> it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

which does answer it.

------
athirnuaimi
Given that this is from the CEO of a public company, it does not reflect well
on WIX. CEOs set the tone for the rest of the company. Mr. Abrahami should
have had the issue investigated and if what Wordpress says is true (and it
looks like it it), apologize and take corrective action. That probably means
removing the mobile app from the App Store while they rewrite parts of the
app. Or they can release the source code. There really aren't other options.

I've worked with and for several large software companies. They have all taken
GPL licenses very seriously. Mistakes can occur but GPL is not something they
trivialize.

------
blintz
> "we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the
> application"

Well, now you must release the source code of that whole application,
immediately. There's no argument to be had, no "I did not even know we were
fighting" \- there's no fight, just legally binding requirements on what you
release.

~~~
lwf
The GPL doesn't force your hand; "you _have_ to release your code" is never
the case. You can always just stop infringing :)

(IANAL, this is not legal advice)

~~~
0x0
Isn't the alternative admitting you have committed copyright infringement?

~~~
tptacek
Yes, but that only entitles you to monetary damages, which may be small in
this case.

~~~
dctoedt
Monetary damages can be in the amount of the infringer's profits arising from
the infringement.

 _[The following is copied and pasted from a Common Draft annotation:]_

Consider the case of _Frank Music Corp. v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc.,_ 886
F.2d 1545 (9th Cir. 1989) (Frank Music II): [1]

\+ The MGM Grand Hotel had a floor show called _Hallelujah Hollywood!,_ which
included ‘tributes' to various MGM movies.

\+ The floor show incorporated significant portions of the musical _Kismet,_
which had been made into an MGM movie.

\+ The court found that this went beyond MGM's ‘movie rights' and therefore
infringed the copyright in the musical.

\+ The resulting damage award included not just a portion of profits from the
floor show itself, but 2% of the overall profits from the MGM Grand's hotel
operations — _including 2% of the casino profits_ — which, the court found,
were indirectly attributable to the promotional value of the infringing floor
show.

[1]
[https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=169034711262654...](https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16903471126265449346)

------
llamataboot
The weird snarky passive-aggressive tone of this is really off-putting to me.
"Hey dude, we'e released some cool stuff, check it out, maybe your business
can use it"

~~~
cube00
"...that is the concept of open source right?"

------
jwebb99
Wait. What's going here?

I've been reading some of the HN comments in response to this story and it
seems you guys are saying that ANY codebase built on WP must be visibly
released to the public.

So does that mean, millions of WP sites with custom mods must relase release
their code in some capacity? If so, where? And how am I supposed to declare
where the sourcecode can be found--a dedicated page on my site, a comment in
my HTML?

I'm really struggling to understand how the guys at Wix are the villains in
this story. It seems every year Mullenweg issues a Fatwa in response to some
imagined violation of WP's GPL licence. He's really becoming quite belligerent
over this crusade of his.

Seriously, do we all need to release our source code if we build stuff on WP?
If not, why the hell is Wix getting so much shit?

~~~
firasd
It's more about distribution. So if you make some changes and keep it on your
server you don't have to show the code to everyone, but if you release a
plugin for third parties to download, then everyone who gets the download
should be able to read, modify and distribute the plugin code under the same
license. In this case the app is distributed to phones.

~~~
ceejayoz
That gets a little iffy, though. If your custom plugin _distributes_
CSS/JS/HTML to browsers, does that count?

~~~
delinka
If your custom plugin distributes its output, no. Generally speaking, the
output of a GPL'd program is not also subject to the GPL (quines
notwithstanding.)

~~~
ceejayoz
WordPress's JS (and I'd argue its CSS/HTML) is much more integral part of the
code for the system than mere "output", IMO.

~~~
delinka
Indeed. I was hoping to elicit some clarification and left out some of my own:
if JS, CSS & HTML are part of the GPL'd product, I'd agree that those parts
qualify as being 'distributed' to users.

------
beejiu
It is always amusing for people to debate about 'open source' and how licenses
work. They, as the CEO of Wix has, repeat the same misunderstandings time and
time again. You don't need a lawyer. You don't need an opinion. Set aside 15
minutes of your day and actually read the license. It is not complicated.

------
alanh
Not a good first impression, Wix: [https://alanhogan.com/files/wix-blog-first-
impression.png](https://alanhogan.com/files/wix-blog-first-impression.png)

------
snorrah
WOW DUDE

Clearly a great opening line. If you write an open letter, try not sounding
terrible in your letter.

------
bdcravens
> There are more than 3 million lines of code in the Wix application

This always bugs me and feels disingenuous. Should I count all the
modules/gems in my app? (A quick check of a Rails app found about 1.4mloc but
about 25kloc is code I wrote - which should I count?)

------
gargarplex
I think Wix is a superior product for many businesses, but this post did not
address the question of GPL violation.

------
detaro
> _If you need source code that we have, and we have not yet released, then,
> most likely we will be happy to share, you only need to ask._

Well, the initial blog post makes clear what source code Automattic thinks
they (and everybody) needs...

------
mpcod
Matt hits on part of the issue clearly in his update on his post.

"I will say we look to Wix, Weebly, and Squarespace as innovators in the space
with products that reach many small businesses, and Wix especially should be
commended for its success and growth as a public company."

It is unfair to take the best parts of your competitors work and so freely use
it while ignoring the overall scope of the license which permitted you to do
so in the first place, pretending there isn't long established precedent. If
Wix wasn't a successful competitor, nobody would know about their use of this
code. Nobody would care.

Personally - it is why I love the GPL. I removes code from the equation
because everyone who takes distribution has the code. So for services and
apps, defense comes through excellence in execution, not defense through
proprietary code (since running something successful requires so much more
than simply code). It's why companies like to defend their market positions
through proprietary code. They are afraid (and know) someone else could do it
better, so they protect their investment at least by making someone else have
to do it over as a hurdle to entry.

Anyone can take WordPress.org, make a WordPress.com-like free blog hosting
company, and completely compete with Automattic. Many try to with their own
stacks, and clearly are not doing as well as WordPress.com. That's telling,
and why Matt is in the right.

My opinion is that it is a complete sin to include the good work of your
competitor in your proprietary code. It is very revealing about the greediness
and capacity of Wix's management to pull something like this. Even if they try
to come off as good guys. They are hiding something bad. Why?

No company this dishonest should be trusted with anything. If I was with Wix,
I would move to someone else on principle. So ... what else are they doing?
What are they doing with your information they have about you then? And I will
for sure highlight this behavior to people I know who use Wix.

Their only course of action to fix this is to admit their error and to fully
open source their code. If they decide to retreat and remove the GPL'd code,
it is a greater admission of what they were trying to do in the first place
behind closed doors, and were just "unlucky" enough to get caught.

Shame on you Wix. Fix it. I have pity on you for falling victim to Wall
Street's greed. You owe the internet more than that.

------
JoshMnem
It seems like there are misconceptions about the GPL in both Wix posts.

It's interesting that Wix advertises "Start Your Own Stunning Blog" to
customers:

[http://www.wix.com/start/blog](http://www.wix.com/start/blog)

but they are using WordPress for their own company blog.

------
mk3
People should realise that Matt also has for profit company Automatic and it's
mostly defending his cash cow rather than spirit of open source.

Also speaking about originaly MIT licensed editor code which suddenly becomes
GPL: Taking someones work adding modifications on top and slapping different
license on top wildly unethical. As it benefits only the person who slapped
GPL on top. As I know if you use GPL licensed code you must have GPL license.
At least in wordpress case:
[https://wordpress.org/about/license/](https://wordpress.org/about/license/).
So author can not use the improvements Automatic engineers made while using
his library for profit.

~~~
ryan-allen
Very true. Automattic have heaps of closed source code to run their
proprietary platform and they don't release that to the public, yet they
demand it from others.

Mullenweg has a history of "do as I say not as I do" in regards to GPL, and to
my mind it's a bit of sour grapes on his part.

~~~
league
Distribution changes this. They do not distribute WordPress.com for download.
They do distribute WordPress.org

~~~
mpcod
Automattic doesn't do anything with WordPress.org but contribute to it.

WordPress.com uses a lot of WordPress.org code and other open source code
(that they wrote and distribute), but I imagine there is a lot of (probably
stupidly ugly) back end stuff they have not released that helps them run a
service as huge as WordPress.com ... but they aren't distributing it so... if
they did, I am sure they would do so under GPL.

------
tarboreus
This is pure obfuscation. He doesn't even mention the GPL in this post. He's
legally obligated to release the entire application, and is probably
scrambling now to find an Apache or MIT-licensed alternative to the WordPress
editor.

------
Lazare
The tone of the response really rubs me the wrong way.

> Wow, dude I did not even know we were fighting.

It's not a fight; it's a dispute over licensing.

> you say we have been taking from the open source community without giving
> back, well, of course, that isn’t true.

No, you were accused of not following a specific license on a specific piece
of code.

> Here is a list of 224 projects on our public GitHub page

Open source is not a swap meet; you can't violate a license if you voluntarily
release some other code to make up for it.

> and we will release the app you saw as well.

If that means "we were inadvertently not in compliance, but we are releasing
the code and will be in compliance shortly", then that needed a tweet at most,
not a rambling blog post about the fact you've got 224 projects on github. So
I'm guessing this does _not_ mean they're taking steps to become compliant?

> Yes, we did use the WordPress open source library for a minor part of the
> application (that is the concept of open source right?)

Yes, along with following the actual terms of the actual license when you use
an open source library. You weren't accused of not adhering to the spirit of
open source; you were accused of not following the letter of a license (which,
if true, means you aren't adhering to the spirit of open source either).

> If you need source code that we have, and we have not yet released, then,
> most likely we will be happy to share, you only need to ask.

That's...what they did. You need to comply with the licenses of the libraries
you use, you were asked to do it. You will "most likely" be happy to do it?
You were asked; you're replying to being asked, and your answer is that you
don't have an answer, but the odds are good that you'll have one someday? What
does this even mean?

Considering the sheer mass of words, it's amazing that the word "license" and
"GPL" don't occur even once. There's no attempt to address or discuss the
actual accusation being made, just vague assertions that some stuff will be
released someday, maybe, if you're asked, and hey how about a coffee.

All this needed was a tweet: "Thanks for heads-up; will be compliant shortly."
Or maybe: "On advice of lawyers, we believe we are in full compliance,
thanks." Reminds me of an old lawyer joke: If the facts are against you,
hammer the law. If the law is against you, hammer the facts. If both are
against you, hammer the table." I'm going to mark this down as "table
hammering", and I think it rather sugests that _Wix_ , at least, thinks their
position sucks.

~~~
nukemberg
You know what? How about we discuss the tone of Matt's blog post too.

>I started playing around with the editor, and felt… déjà vu. It was familiar.
Like I had used it before. Turns out I had. Because it’s WordPress.

No, it's only one open source library. Claiming an app is wordpress because it
uses a shared library is like claiming Postgres and Apache webserver are the
same because they both use libc. There's also a subtle claim of brand
infringement here.

>If I were being charitable, I’d say, “The app’s editor is based on the
WordPress mobile app’s editor.” If I were being honest, I’d say that Wix
copied WordPress without attribution, credit, or following the license.

Not quite. Wix has given attribution and credit on their Github page. They
have only failed to comply with the license terms.

>You can see the forked repositories on GitHub complete with original commits
from Alex and Maxime, two developers on Automattic’s mobile team

Yes, that's called a git submodule with proper credit and attribution. If the
commits were somehow rewritten to omit the author's information, THAT would
have been a grave offence. Wix' publishing of the (partial) derivative work at
the very least indication this was due to ignorance and not foul play. Yet
Matt follows on with:

>Wix has always borrowed liberally from WordPress — including their company
name, which used to be Wixpress Ltd. — but this blatant rip-off and code theft
is beyond anything I’ve seen before from a competitor

Let's bring up an unrelated matter (which is debatable at best and irrelevant
to software licensing) AND imply the whole thing was intentional and with
malice. Not that it stopped Matt from using the "I could have gone to legal
but maybe it was an honest mistake" argument in the comments later on. Note
the use of the word "competitor".

What we're seeing here is not a license dispute. It's a quarrel between rival
CEOs. If Matt really cared about compliance with GPL rather than bashing Wix
he could have simply published a blog post saying "Hey Wix, I think you made a
licensing mistake, how about you rectify it", or perhaps send an email to that
effect - that would have been the honorable thing to do.

------
prh8
I think that was very well done by the Wix CEO. It doesn't matter that he
doesn't seem to understand GPL. His job is not to put out a blog post saying
_yes, we 're idiots, liable for everything._ His job is to put out a good look
for the company, and then deal with this behind closed doors. This is meant as
a fluff piece, and he knows better than to provide any definitive statements
on what Wix will do, that they could be held too. Again, positive spin, and
handle the rest in private.

~~~
return0
Judging by the response here, he didnt put forward a good look.

~~~
prh8
I don't think we are necessarily the specific target audience. If so, he
probably would have done a better job with the technical details.

------
tlogan
IANAL, but these guys are also not (but I think wix.com did consult them).

The WordPress component in question is based MIT license which might not
included in valid way as GPL and Wix.com is using that component. I assume
Wix.com's layers told them that this component cannot be protected under GPL
so they are ok to use them.

------
hellofunk
The Wix CEO previously left a comment or two here in this thread but I see he
has removed them. I think the heat is on, it is clear that he not only did not
follow GPL but actually accidentally admitted to that in this own blog!

~~~
boulos
Really? I don't see any deleted, dead or even flagged comments in this thread
(I have showdead on).

~~~
hellofunk
I definitely saw one last night, and I've looked for it again here today and I
do not see it.

------
jondot
FYI: Wix has tooling for verifying their OSS policy
[https://github.com/wix/wix-oss-ci-police](https://github.com/wix/wix-oss-ci-
police)

~~~
pluma
In other words: don't use that tool because you shouldn't trust Wix with
handling OSS licensing correctly?

------
benguild
Does Avashai Abarhami know what an "open letter" is?

------
Kiro
I hate GPL. I don't want to publish my crappy code and make a fool of myself.
No-one would want to use it anyway. I would be extremely impressed if they
could even understand anything with all the esoteric and ugly hacks it exist
of.

------
jondubois
Most people who are seriously involved in open source know that GPL is
ironically one of the least free licenses. So, basically, if any company wants
to incorporate a GPL product into their project for distribution, they would
have to essentially make their entire project's source code public also under
GPL - Which is a completely undesirable thing to do for any company. The bad
part about GPL is that it applies to everyone except the licence owner.

GPL is just the FSF's way of saying f __* you to companies who didn 't bother
to read up on what GPL actually means. It doesn't actually fulfil its purpose
as an open source license - It just puts all the leverage in the hands of the
license owner.

Hypothetically, if the GPL also applied to the creator of the GPL product THEN
it would be fair - But that's not possible because the creator would never sue
themselves for breaching their own GPL.

~~~
zizee
> GPL is ironically one of the least free licenses

This is a common misunderstanding as you are talking from the perspective of a
publisher, rather than that of an End User.

GPL is about enforcing the rights of End Users, not Publishers. So, from a End
Users perspective, GPL is more free than say MIT as it gives the end user the
freedom to look at and change the code of software that they are running. This
takes away the freedom of the publisher to keep code secret.

MIT provides more rights to a Publisher than the End User as it allows the
publisher to do pretty much whatever they want, but removes freedom to look
and modify code from the end user.

It is all a matter of perspective, wherein lies the confusion.

~~~
yellowapple
> MIT [...] removes freedom to look and modify code from the end user.

Er, what? What's stopping the end user from just downloading the source code?
The MIT license applies to them, too. Sure, they aren't guaranteed the source
code of a derived work, but they _are_ informed about the origin of the MIT-
licensed source code (per the terms of the MIT license).

The problem with distinguishing between "publisher" and "end user" here is
that - under the free software and open source philosophies - the two roles
are one and the same. Anyone end user can be a publisher. It's thus
nonsensical to claim that the MIT licenses (and other non-copyleft free
software licenses) themselves somehow "remove" freedom from anyone.

~~~
zizee
> What's stopping the end user from just downloading the source code?

Ah, the ambiguities of the english language! You are talking about the
original code, whereas I am talking about the derived work.

If the Publisher of a derived work chooses to not grant permission, the End
User does not have the freedom to look/modify/redistribute the code of
software derived from MIT licensed work.

> "publisher" and "end user" ... under the free software and open source
> philosophies - the two roles are one and the same

This is incorrect. Whilst it is true that sometimes the same person is
performing both roles, the the roles can be mutually exclusive. I can use a
piece of GPL'd software without publishing it. I do it all the time with
Linux. The GPL is about protecting a person using the software as an End User
(not "use" as in using it to create a derived work). The GPL gives freedoms to
one role, and takes from the other.

Your statement:

> Sure, they aren't guaranteed the source code of a derived work

Is not compatible with:

> It's thus nonsensical to claim that the MIT licenses ... "remove" freedom
> from anyone.

It is clear to me that the ability for an End User to inspect, modify and
redistribute the software that they are using is more free than not being able
to inspect modify or redistribute at all.

Edit: It is true that the end user hasn't "lost" anything (or had it
"removed"), as they never had the thing before the derived work was published,
but they are certainly less free under the two hypothetical situations. Once
again, the english language proves to be a tricky thing for me to wield, not
matter how much care I take!

~~~
yellowapple
> Ah, the ambiguities of the english language! You are talking about the
> original code, whereas I am talking about the derived work.

Right, but when talking about freedoms regarding a specific work, the
derivative works aren't really relevant, since my (as an end user) freedom to
use/modify/redistribute/etc. the original work remains unhindered.

Likewise, my choice to release software under an MIT-like license does not in
and of itself detract from end users' freedom; what downstream projects do
with my code is not my concern so long as my in-code copyright notices are
maintained. For all I know, my code is being used in projects with GPL or MPL
or CDDL or Artistic License 2.0 or BSD-style or Apache or what have you
licensing terms.

> the roles can be mutually exclusive.

That's not what "mutually exclusive" means. "Mutually exclusive" means that
you can either be an end user or a publisher - never both. The whole
philosophy behind FOSS dictates the precise _opposite_ of mutual exclusion;
the "Four Freedoms"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition))
make this very clear.

Sure, you might happen to be one or the other, but the point is that free
software empowers you to be both at the same time. By restricting one's
freedom as a "publisher" (as you say), you're inherently restricting one's
freedom as an "end user".

~~~
zizee
> the derivative works aren't really relevant

Um... why not? If I am the end user of a work derived from some GPL code, then
having the freedom to see/modify and re-distribute that code is valuable to
me. From the very start of this thread I have been talking about protecting
the freedom of the end user. Perhaps an example can help?

But first, let me give an example of what I mean by "End User". I do not mean
a programmer who "uses" GPL'd code by making changes to that code to make a
derived work to redistribute. I mean someone who uses a piece of software to
perform a task. e.g. Using LibreOffice to type up a document.

Now for an example of a derivative work where GPL adds freedom for the end
user, but takes it away from the publisher:

I use Ubuntu on my desktop as an End User. Ubuntu is a derived from Debian,
which is derived from GNU/Linux, a GPL licensed work. Because Debian and
Ubuntu are derived from GNU/Linux, they must also be licensed under the GPL.
As an End User of Ubuntu, I have the freedom to examine/modify Ubuntu's source
code. The Ubuntu Team has to let me do it because of the GPL. If GNU/Linux was
licensed under MIT, Ubuntu could be published as a closed source, proprietary
software. I could still use Ubuntu, but I would not be free to look at the
source code, modify it or redistribute it. True, with Ubuntu licensed as GPL,
I am not free to package up my own closed source variant of Ubuntu, but
neither would I have the freedom to do so if Ubuntu was closed source.

> That's not what "mutually exclusive" means. "Mutually exclusive" means that
> you can either be an end user or a publisher - never both

I concede that I have used that term incorrectly. Perhaps I am wrong in
thinking this, but I suspect most people would have been able to glean what I
was attempting to convey, but perhaps my use of english is too clumsy for me
to communicate what I wish to convey.

> By restricting one's freedom as a "publisher" (as you say), you're
> inherently restricting one's freedom as an "end user".

What I am saying, and have been from the start of this thread, is that GPL is
designed to put some freedoms above other freedoms. It's like the saying "Your
Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins". Unlimited freedom
cannot exist for everybody, under all conditions. GPL puts more importance on
the freedom to operate/examine/tinker than to publish. The fact that an
individual can have both their freedom increased and decreased at the same
time does seem paradoxical, but when you realise different freedoms can be in
conflict with each other, it does make sense.

Ok, I think I've probably written enough. I do understand what you are saying.
The GPL takes away some freedoms. I hope that what I have written has
convinced you that it grants you some freedoms at the same time.

Cheers and have a great night!

------
harperlee
I think this is a golden example of how to reply to an accusation: lay down
the facts, don't get down to the mud, but clearly expose the other side's
errors - with class!

~~~
mwfunk
They're still not complying with the GPL though? It's completely cut and
dried, it's not an argument where people can have differing opinions with
varying degrees of validity. The GPL is a very well-known and widely
understood license.

~~~
nicky0
But if you stop infringing the GPL, the terms of the GPL no longer apply, so
you cannot be forced to obey it's terms. You can however be sued for damages
due to the historic copyright infringement.

