So, all the companies I named and many more, then.
Go on, go on Docker’s or GitLab’s website (just to name two examples), and let me know how clear the distinction between their proprietary and open-source software is.
Do people think that Docker is a non-profit? Is there a separate non-profit called “Docker.org” that runs over 43% of the Internet that the for-profit “Docker.com” (a separate entity) intentionally conflates with themselves and uses the non-profit organization to get a major advantage over many other for-profit businesses that sell hosting for Docker?
It seems like you’re trying to read what I am saying in a way that fits what you want me to be saying and ignoring what I am saying rather than what I am clearly communicating.
There is a separate open source project “Docker Engine” that runs 27% of containerized applications, that the for-profit “Docker Inc.” intentionally conflates with the proprietary, for-profit software “Docker Desktop” to get a major advantage over other for-profit businesses that sell tooling for “Docker Engine”.
To make matters worse, “Docker Inc.” still controls the “Docker Engine” project and “Docker” trademark. This contrasts with “Automattic”, which spun out the “WordPress” project and trademark into a separate entity “WordPress Foundation”.
It seems like you’re trying to read what I am saying in a way that fits what you want me to be saying and ignoring what I am saying rather than what I am clearly communicating.
Sorry, but I think this applies to you more than it does to me.
I’ll make one final attempt to spell it out. Mullenweg and Little founded “WordPress” and spun it out of Mullenweg’s company “Automattic” as a separate non-profit.
Founadi, Hykes and Pahl founded “Docker Engine” and did not spin it out of their company “Docker Inc.” as a separate non-profit (which is the case for MOST companies that create open-source software).
I can’t put any more of a fine point on it, so this will be my last comment on the topic. Have a good day.
That’s literally my point. Docker doesn’t pretend to be a non-profit, WordPress does.
Your ‘points’ were:
[Automattic] intentionally leads people to conflate the free and open-source software WordPress (WordPress.org) and their own proprietary and overpriced version.
Most companies doing open source lead people to conflate their free and open source software with their own proprietary version.
Both are quite literally led by the same person, and have been since their founding.
Now you have strayed the discussion to another ‘point’ (while accusing me of arguing in bad faith):
WordPress ‘pretends’ to be a non-profit.
To humor you I shall also provide a rebuttal to this third point:
WordPress doesn’t pretend to be anything of the sort, because:
WP.org claims, on its homepage, to be “the open source platform that powers the web,” “built by an open source community with decades of experience,” and “community at its core.” It does not claim to be a non-profit.
WP.com claims, on its homepage, to be “WordPress, Your Way,” “the best way to WordPress,” and “lightning-fast, secure managed WordPress hosting.” It does not claim to be a non-profit.
The WordPress Foundation claims, on its homepage, to be “a charitable organization founded by Matt Mullenweg to further the mission of the WordPress open source project”, because it is.
Most companies doing open source lead people to conflate their free and open source software with their own proprietary version.
No, other companies make it very clear considering that there is no non-profit organization when it’s all controlled under one for-profit entity. You have not provided a single example of anything similar of a non-profit organization being used to benefit a for-profit organization because it is illegal.
Both are quite literally led by the same person, and have been since their founding
Yes. That is the fucking problem. A non-profit is used to unfairly benefit a specific for-profit business. That is illegal and unethical.
WordPress.org is run by a non-profit. WordPress.com is run a separate for-profit entity. That is what I have been saying. WordPress.org gives preferential treatment because they allow a separate entity to use their trademarks while explicitly not letting others do the same.
So, all the companies I named and many more, then.
Go on, go on Docker’s or GitLab’s website (just to name two examples), and let me know how clear the distinction between their proprietary and open-source software is.
Do people think that Docker is a non-profit? Is there a separate non-profit called “Docker.org” that runs over 43% of the Internet that the for-profit “Docker.com” (a separate entity) intentionally conflates with themselves and uses the non-profit organization to get a major advantage over many other for-profit businesses that sell hosting for Docker?
It seems like you’re trying to read what I am saying in a way that fits what you want me to be saying and ignoring what I am saying rather than what I am clearly communicating.
No, it’s worse than that.
There is a separate open source project “Docker Engine” that runs 27% of containerized applications, that the for-profit “Docker Inc.” intentionally conflates with the proprietary, for-profit software “Docker Desktop” to get a major advantage over other for-profit businesses that sell tooling for “Docker Engine”.
To make matters worse, “Docker Inc.” still controls the “Docker Engine” project and “Docker” trademark. This contrasts with “Automattic”, which spun out the “WordPress” project and trademark into a separate entity “WordPress Foundation”.
Sorry, but I think this applies to you more than it does to me.
I’ll make one final attempt to spell it out. Mullenweg and Little founded “WordPress” and spun it out of Mullenweg’s company “Automattic” as a separate non-profit.
Founadi, Hykes and Pahl founded “Docker Engine” and did not spin it out of their company “Docker Inc.” as a separate non-profit (which is the case for MOST companies that create open-source software).
I can’t put any more of a fine point on it, so this will be my last comment on the topic. Have a good day.
That’s literally my point. Docker doesn’t pretend to be a non-profit, WordPress does.
What a blowhard way of saying the most childish response of “no u”.
Your ‘points’ were:
I’ve already provided rebuttals to both points:
Now you have strayed the discussion to another ‘point’ (while accusing me of arguing in bad faith):
To humor you I shall also provide a rebuttal to this third point:
By the way… WP.org goes out of its way to recommend various hosting providers beside WP.com.
No, other companies make it very clear considering that there is no non-profit organization when it’s all controlled under one for-profit entity. You have not provided a single example of anything similar of a non-profit organization being used to benefit a for-profit organization because it is illegal.
Yes. That is the fucking problem. A non-profit is used to unfairly benefit a specific for-profit business. That is illegal and unethical.
WordPress.org is run by a non-profit. WordPress.com is run a separate for-profit entity. That is what I have been saying. WordPress.org gives preferential treatment because they allow a separate entity to use their trademarks while explicitly not letting others do the same.