WordPress.com blogs can now be followed on Mastodon and other federated platforms | TechCrunch
WordPress.com blogs can now be followed on Mastodon and other federated platforms | TechCrunch
Earlier this year, WordPress.com owner Automattic acquired a plug-in that allowed WordPress blogs to be followed in the fediverse -- the decentralized
You're viewing a single thread.
Fuck WordPress.com. They intentionally lead people to conflate the free and open-source software WordPress (WordPress.org) and their own proprietary and overpriced version.
You can't install plugins on their platform until you pay them $40/mo ($25/mo if you pay annually). That's one of the most expensive WordPress hosting out there and it's a completely different proprietary version with less access and control than you'd find elsewhere for far less.
the same organisation makes both, they just release a subset of their work as the open source version of WordPress. it's a pretty standard business model for this kind of software
That is incorrect. Automattic donates some work to the open-source project, but they are in no way the same thing.
Man this is like saying proton isn't made by Valve... Matt Mullenweg was one of the cocreators of Wordpress and went on to start Automattic which is a pun on his name. He's literally got (or at least had) the title of lead developer in the Worldpress Foundation and he's CEO of Automattic.
I didn't say it's not "made by", they clearly contribute plenty, just like many others. The issue is that a non-profit entity should not be used as an advertising platform giving preferential treatment to a single for-profit business.
The WordPress Foundation clearly states that you can't use the name WordPress in your domain or business name nor use the logo for your business (https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/) yet that is what Automattic does and Automattic or WordPress.com is not the same entity as the WordPress Foundation or WordPress.org. That is illegal and unethical.
If you own a name, you can grant anyone you want permission to use that name. It's not illegal.
Not when you are a non-profit. You cannot run a non-profit in a way that only provides special benefits to a person or group and exclude others.
Donates some work? They open source the platform. You can pay for hosting at .com.. honestly asking, what are you even mad about?
Feels like the typical "I shouldn't have to spend money for things!!!" attitude that goes around on here.
WordPress is a free and open-source software provided by a non-profit organization. WordPress.com is a for-profit business and a completely separate entity. What Automattic is doing is illegal and unethical.
Because WordPress.org is a non-profit that is clearly being treated as a puppet for the WordPress.com for-profit business. It's not just "they also open-source their software". They are separate entities. It's literally illegal and obviously unethical.
What laws are being broken? You use adverbs like "clearly" and "obviously" to make your point but they're not helpful. It's not obvious. What is unethical?
Nonprofit organizations are not allowed to divert undue benefits to any person or organization.
It is obvious and clear if you know the bare minimum of non-profit organizations.
Do you actually not understand the basics of non-profit organizations? If so, I'm not sure why you're butting into a conversation about the subject. Otherwise you must be arguing in bad faith.
No, not in bad faith. Look at the comment vote counts if you think I'm being provocative about a minority opinion.
Mozilla Corp is a subsidiary of the non profit. They put money in it. Wtf are you talking about?
I think "undue" is subjective and you're inserting your opinions.
Comment votes are meaningless considering no one can tell if the people voting are even qualified to weigh in. Do you think the votes on r/the_donald mattered? That is the appeal to popularity fallacy
You bring up Mozilla as an example but make no effort to explain how it's similar.
No one is allowed to use the WordPress trademark or logo for their business, except for one company. That for-profit company is not owned or run by the non-profit and the only connection is the owner/founder/CEO. Please provide some logic or reasoning why that is not an undue benefit.
Dude stop. You're calling me out for bad faith but look what you're doing. Everything you're writing in direct response to something I've shared, you're misdirecting from the intent.
I literally brought it back to WordPress and I was asking you to explain how your Mozilla example was relevant to the main point regarding WordPress.
It's now very apparent that you're intentionally acting in bad faith, because I can't believe you could say something so obviously false otherwise.