
WordPress creator slams Wix: ‘Your app editor is built with stolen code’ - jaredtking
http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/28/wordpress-creator-matt-mullenweg-slams-wix-your-app-editor-is-built-with-stolen-code/
======
mmaunder
Back when blogging was just starting out, MovableType was the most popular
platform. Written by Ben and Mena Trott, it was open source and written in
perl.

It was awesome, super popular and could have been WordPress today.

They raised funding. Possibly under VC pressure, they made the license terms
more closed source and restrictive.

Meanwhile, Matt Mullenweg had forked b2 and created WordPress under GPL.

When MovableType went closed source/more restrictive, their users fled to
WordPress. The rest is pretty much history.

So what this historical context helps us understand is that firstly,
WordPress/Automattic is very careful about ever going closed source with
anything because they learned their lessons thanks to MovableType and what
happened to them.

So WP has chosen to be open source, stay open source and defend open source
because history has shown that is what the market wants and if you don't do
that, they'll divorce you.

Living in that world as a multi-million (billion?) dollar company is a tough
gig because, as Matt himself did with B2, anyone can fork your code and run
with it.

But the one thing that WP/Automattic can count on is the GPL. If someone does
fork the code, they are forever bound by the same competitive constraints that
Automattic/WP is bound by. In other words: someone else can fork their code
and so on in perpetuity.

So as long as WP enforces the GPL over WordPress, they will never have a
competitor stronger than they are who can develop proprietary IP off their
platform and gain a competitive advantage. The GPL ensures that anything
created out of WordPress is always available to all competitors. And the
competitor with the greatest head-start wins and that's WordPress.

This is really the basis for how multi-billion dollar companies are built out
of open source. They count on the GPL to ensure everything they create never
becomes a proprietary competitive advantage to a competitor that isn't also
available to them.

So Matt M has a strategic imperative to always enforce the GPL on everything
open source they do, or else they're building the foundation of the company
that will kill them.

~~~
brazzledazzle
How could they enforce the GPL against a company offering Wordpress as a SaaS
application? This Wix app is different since it's a mobile app I believe.
Unless WordPress uses a version of GPL that accounts for SaaS they couldn't do
much about anything but someone offering on-prem solutions or actual apps
right?

~~~
delinka
You are correct. Since WP is GPLv2, there's nothing to prevent a hosting
provide installing WP, making changes, and charging for the 'enhanced' service
and keeping the code for themselves, because the hosted app isn't being
'distributed' to end users. (There may indeed be some nuance if part of WP is
client-side JavaScript...)

And this is exactly the case that Affero GPL was written for. (Affero is a
modification to GPLv3.)

~~~
heroh
any recommended resources to learn more about licenses, differences and when
to consider what?

~~~
RodericDay
I'd like to know what is the most Stallmanite license out there. The kind that
corporate lawyers would like to stay far away from, that forces downstream
projects to be as open as the source.

~~~
delinka
Affero GPL. If the public can touch the product or service, you have to
provide the source. My company avoids incorporating any GPL-licensed
libraries, even those with linking exceptions.

------
labria
Wix developer replying: [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#.bgj085y0q)

~~~
jessaustin
_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._

Yes, that would have been a much better decision, for a library to use in a
closed-source app. Ripping out the GPL code and substituting the MIT code
should be the next thing you do. Then you can apologize to all of us for not
understanding how popular software licenses work.

------
Mathnerd314
"Good artists borrow, great artists steal"

More seriously, he hasn't actually shown any stolen code, just that the app
feels "surprisingly familiar" [https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-
gpl/](https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/)

Edit: I just checked the Android app and having a package named
"org.wordpress.android.editor" matching the stuff in
[https://github.com/wix/WordPress-Editor-
Android/tree/9f0e776...](https://github.com/wix/WordPress-Editor-
Android/tree/9f0e776c74ba9021cba6e1cdb7d8962131c507b8/WordPressEditor/src/main/java/org/wordpress/android/editor)
is pretty convincing.

~~~
tomdell
He mentioned that you can look and see on GitHub that Wix explicitly forked
Wordpress repositories.

The gist I got was this - Wordpress was working on this in open source. Wix
took their work, built on it, and didn't make their contributions open source,
taking advantage of the repository and giving nothing back.

~~~
otoburb
>>Wix took their work, built on it, and didn't make their contributions open
source, taking advantage of the repository and giving nothing back.

Which is fine if the code was BSD licensed, but the article states that
Wordpress uses GPL, hence Wix may be violating the license regardless of the
breach in attribution etiquette.

~~~
kevlened
Although it seems against the spirit of GPL, the GPL doesn't explicitly
protect against code hosted as a service, so the wix website isn't in
violation. That's why AGPL exists.

IANAL, but their private fork (I couldn't find a public one on Github) is also
technically permissible, as it's not a redistribution of the code.

Edit: if what's in question are strictly web assets (images, js, etc), then
I'm pretty sure, but not certain, this is a violation

~~~
charlesdm
But the app is? If they release a modified version of a GPL Android app, they
would need to supply the source code, no? The Wix app would constitute a
derived work.

~~~
kevlened
That seems fair. The GPL has a loophole for network-provided services, but
apps are native.

~~~
giancarlostoro
Correct, unless WordPress goes AGPL then Wix can keep their hosted code to
themselves. However, the Android App which they should of made themselves will
need to be open sourced or taken down and open sourced. The GPL if I remember
correctly makes it so upon request (thinking of BMW) you must be able to
provide access to the source code, even if you sell the product, that means
that whoever buys a GPL'd product from you must also receive the code, but if
they didn't buy your product there should be no reason for them to have it if
I'm not mistaken. The GPL is interesting, and while not my first choice, it's
definitely not a terrible choice.

~~~
charlesdm
GPL is absolutely useless for commercial products, imo. Unless you can run it
encapsulated on some sort of web service as a standalone executable. If the
goal is to have more open source code, and more code sharing across systems
and services then more code should actually be BSD licensed.

~~~
giancarlostoro
I don't think it's completely useless. If you have software you invested a lot
of money into and the company goes out of business and you have your own
internal engineers (maybe you didn't want to go this route beforehand because
said product was good enough) now you can carry on without the main company.
In the case of WordPress unless they disappear somehow, that is when a fork
will come. Look at LibreOffice vs OpenOffice. MariaDB is a great example of
someone selling a product they made for a LOT of money, and then continuing on
with it, now that Oracle has taken MySQL some have taken to using MariaDB
instead. Don't knock the GPL, it makes many things possible.

~~~
charlesdm
I totally agree on that, _BUT_ I can't use it in a commercial product without
releasing my entire commercial source code? The GPL prohibits many commercial
applications, and even if I would want to use in something, I often cannot,
because it's not feasible to release my entire codebase. There's a lot of GPL
software that's just off limits, exactly because of that. In a way, it
contaminates commercial codebases. That makes me sad, because a lot of GPL
code is of top notch quality.

Why not opt for a BSD license? The things you wrote also apply to BSD licensed
open-source software.

~~~
giancarlostoro
If you're releasing your code, it's only to the customer. The one's who
receive the code are only the ones who receive the binaries and ONLY upon
request, think BMW's code they released upon a customers request. Sometimes
it's better to use GPL or BSD, because some customers will not use your
product if there is no code to guarantee if your company disappears they can't
move on without you. Look at WordPress, their code's right there, and yet
nobody can overshadow them yet.

Edit:

I agree with you, but I was mentioning GPL because you placed it in question.
BSD is great, MS-PL is a little nicer if you need to protect any patents too.

------
avirambm
CEO of Wix responded: [http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-
open-...](http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-letter-
from-wix-coms-ceo-avishai-abrahami/)

~~~
firasd
About "everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open
source", the GPL doesn't let you redistribute modified code and only release
the modified code unfortunately. I guess "we will release the app you saw as
well" may mean that they'd open source the whole app and thus be compliant.

Also the fact that the company was once also known as "Wixpress" is easy to
verify [1], not sure why he would contest that.

[1]
[http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193125-13-387285/1576789/filing.pdf)

------
nextweek2
A lot of people here are missing one of the core tenants of the GPL, in that
any linked application must also be GPL.

Wix developers created an MIT licensed wrapper to bypass this restriction. In
the terms of the GPL that isn't allowed. This is why you see BSD or MIT code
being ported to the Linux kernel but it doesn't go back the other way.

Calling it stolen code is a little strong, in reality they are in violation of
the GPL. If the Wordpress plugin has been LGPL or MIT then it wouldn't be an
issue.

------
yoava
[http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-
open-...](http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-letter-
from-wix-coms-ceo-avishai-abrahami/)

------
drivingmenuts
Can someone clarify?

WP is not only SAAS, but also packaged software. You can use WP's platform to
host your blog, or run it on your own server.

Wix is strictly SAAS, AFAIK (can I get a few more abbreviations in there?).
You can only use their software on their platform - there is no packaged
software that you can run on your own server.

Is this a GPLv3 thing? Did they somehow plug the SAAS hole?

Otherwise, it doesn't seem Mullenweg/WP has a leg to stand on.

------
lightlyused
Don't get me wrong, but doesn't the gpl allow for (or at least not stop) you
to charge for the code?

[https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html)

Couldn't wix just charge some ungodly sum and be done until someone ponies up
the $$$?

~~~
Crosseye_Jack
If you are granted access to the compiled version to a piece of software
covered by the GPL then the GPL grants you the right to request source for
that software. For Wix to do what you suggest would also mean they would have
to price the compiled app out of range its intended audience would pay thus
making the app pointless.

------
samFSM
Wix CEO open letter:

[http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-
open-...](http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-letter-
from-wix-coms-ceo-avishai-abrahami/)

------
pebcakID10T
I think it is a fitting punishment for those who copy parts of the Wordpress
codebase in their product that they must now maintain Wordpress code in their
product.

------
samFSM
Reply from Wix.

[http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-
open-...](http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-letter-
from-wix-coms-ceo-avishai-abrahami/)

------
doubleorseven
[http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-
open-...](http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-letter-
from-wix-coms-ceo-avishai-abrahami/)

* Grabs popcorn _

------
z3t4
The reason why someone would use something like Wix is that they don't have to
deal with source code. So they wouldn't lose any business if they released
their source code. They might even gain good will and popularity by doing so.

~~~
disordinary
You mean they won't have to deal with hosting, 99% of Wordpress users don't
look at the source code, same with Ghost, Drupal, Silverstripe, etc.

~~~
z3t4
Do you think Wordpress would make more or less money if they where open/closed
source ?

~~~
disordinary
I think they probably wouldn't be in business if they were closed source. They
built a business on top of an open source product which already existed (but
was created and maintained by the CEO of Wordpress) that open source platform
allows them to claim that they run 25% of the internet with the consequent
brand awareness and ecosystem.

------
velmu
So WordPress finally created something that can be reused outside of the
walled garden in other competing projects. Yay!
[https://medium.com/@velmu/dear-drupal-and-wordpress-
please-c...](https://medium.com/@velmu/dear-drupal-and-wordpress-please-
create-decoupled-components-d91b72267716#.bw2995nd7)

I just hope Wix then pushes their changes to the editor. And then we can in
the future use the UI components of the WP Apocalypse project:
[https://github.com/Automattic/wp-
calypso/tree/master/client/...](https://github.com/Automattic/wp-
calypso/tree/master/client/components)

------
ivraatiems
If he had a case, he wouldn't be giving interviews about it. He'd be suing
them. And he'd be right to do so.

The fact that he's slinging accusations in print rather than using the legal
system to settle a legal dispute suggests to me that he does not, in fact,
have any evidence Wix is doing anything untoward beyond "this smells kinda
fishy to me."

~~~
morganvachon
In cases like this, the court of public opinion can often be all that is
necessary to resolve the issue and push the violator to do the right thing.
This avoids costly litigation and makes things easier on both sides. If the
violator chooses to ignore the public outcry, then certainly there is the
legal path to follow next.

In a non-software example, if my neighbor intends to violate my property line
with his new fence plans, I'll drop by, have a glass of lemonade with him, and
discuss the issue. If we come to an agreement about the property line and can
resolve the issue right there, that's the best outcome. If he insists on
continuing to violate my rights even after we talked about it, only then would
I seek legal recourse. To jump straight to court over it not only costs me and
him a ton of money, it costs something more valuable: A fractured neighbor-to-
neighbor relationship, ensuring that any future encounters will be hostile and
costly.

------
chinese_dan
So copyright infringement isn't 'theft', yet violating the GNU is theft? You
can't download a car....

I'm really tired of these arguments. If you release something and say that
it's 'free', it's pretty disingenuous to chase after someone for not releasing
their own changes.

Calling it 'theft' doesn't really make sense because nothing of value was
actually stolen. The original code is still there for all to enjoy.

Most places I've worked stay away from GNU code (besides compilers, servers,
and anything not used in the main product) like the plague because of people
like Matt Mullenweg.

I would much rather have the BSD license, which is truly free for everyone.

UPDATE: I always thought HN was the place for intelligent discourse, yet I am
always disappointed.

~~~
khedoros1
GPL is Free as in "don't use this if you want to close it".

If you infringe the copyright on something closed, you do it by spreading that
thing when you aren't supposed to. If you infringe the copyright on something
open, you do it by refusing to distribute your enhancements to it when you're
required to. They're not directly comparable situations.

Freedom goes in two directions. "Freedom to" and "Freedom from". The BSD
license is a "Freedom _to_ enhance the code as you wish" license. The GPL
licenses are "Freedom _from_ someone enhancing the code without sharing those
enhancements". A "freedom to" license is great in the short term; it
encourages individual products. A "freedom from" license is great in the long
term; it encourages growth of the ecosystem as a whole.

Calling it "theft" is a stretch, just like in other cases of copyright
violation. Still, the community is owed a release of the modified code.
"Theft" captures the spirit of the situation, even if it's not applicable in
the literal sense.

