> WordPress is free and open source software, developed under reciprocal licensing (GPL). Hosting companies are neither legally nor morally obligated to contribute back to WordPress core.
Many an old open-source project ran into this trap. Elasticsearch is one good example. Back when the old GPL era open-source projects were invented, the idea of third parties taking open-source software and just making a shitload of money with it was unthought of - and certainly not at the scale of Amazon AWS.
The only counterexample was Wikipedia's MediaWiki, it similarly is GPL but from the start it was clear that there would be at least one commercial side actor - Wikia, nowadays called Fandom.
Of course it was thought of from day one. It was explicitly allowed from the outset.
Anyone who ever licensed something gpl and was then suprised that someone else made a business selling services or otherwise employing the software, is simply, I won't say an idiot but let's say thoughtless. It's possible to be unthinking for other reasons than being incapable.
Unless they were not suprised and never genuinely subscribed to the ideals and theory of open source in the first place, but just wanted the cache that comes with it, as basically a marketing tactic to get popular fast & easy that they don't really intend to honor the moment it becomes inconvenient.
The GPL never cared about or even slightly tried to inhibit or control commercial use of software. It ONLY cares about the end user being empowered.
WPEngine sound like complete soulless sucks, and I wouldn't give them a dime of my own money by choice, but that doesn't matter at all and doesn't harm WordPerfect or anyone else. WPE using the software and not doing a thing but adhering to the GPL is being exactly a perfect GPL citizen. Matt, by trying to enforce any kind of extra terms on a user of GPL software, is the one violating both the letter and spririt of the GPL, which is just super extra rich considering what his whole attempted argument has been.
But anyway the point I meant to say was "the idea of third parties taking open-source software and just making a shitload of money with it was unthought of"
Yes it was explicitly thought of all along. It's neither a goal nor an anti-goal, it's simply expected, and expected that traditional business models will be difficult when the user can have the source, and irrelevant either way, wthether someone tries, or not, succeeds, or not.
It's like ownership of property. If I sell you a car, I have no legitimate interest in what you do with the car. You can do something I would totally hate. It's none of my business. The author of GPL software similarly has no interest in what a user does with the software other than adhering to the GPL terms. Using it and giving nothing back other than what the GPL requires is 100% fine and upstanding.
Many an old open-source project ran into this trap. Elasticsearch is one good example. Back when the old GPL era open-source projects were invented, the idea of third parties taking open-source software and just making a shitload of money with it was unthought of - and certainly not at the scale of Amazon AWS.
The only counterexample was Wikipedia's MediaWiki, it similarly is GPL but from the start it was clear that there would be at least one commercial side actor - Wikia, nowadays called Fandom.