Hacker News Reader

Comment by luuurker | Hacker News Reader

> [...] and stolen [...]

I'm not happy with the mess and Matt's behaviour, but you can't steal free code.

He's stolen the ACF permalink, reviews, download count, active installations (including the ability to push auto updates), etc.

Sure, the code is free, but that's still a lot of theft.

https://wordpress.org/plugins/advanced-custom-fields/

To add to that he is now violating their trademark by still using their name, branding and logo, all of which are registered trademarks. The copy you download still has all of these in.

Way to speed run wiping out trust in your product.

Any Wordpress plugin developer who relies on it for their livelihood should be EXTREMELY worried.

Not only that, but he's taken over all their customers as well if the update source was wordpress.org.

I don't disagree with that, but the comment I've replied to said they were stealing "what they had previously provided". The stuff "provided" was code shared under a GPL license.

Maybe it's a technicality, but the code is open source and you can do whatever you want it it, provided that you respect the GPL license.

There's a lot to criticise Matt for here, but you can't accuse him of stealing GPL code. Like, that's one of the points of that license.

This is not about the code. WP is free to fork it with a new name. This is replacing the old plugin with all its reviews, download count.

The part of the comment I meant to reply to was this: "[...] and stolen what they had previously provided".

You're right about the reviews, users, url, etc, but what was "previously provided" was code with a GPL license. You can't "steal" that.

The list of things to criticise Matt for is long, but you can't accuse him of stealing open source code.

What Matt did is basically a supply chain attack.

Not the first one. Cutting WPEngine customers off the plugin repository was one, too.

Where in the world, how the hell did you get the idea that stealing free code isn't stealing?

Stealing involves acquiring something in an illegal way. Free in the context of open source code usually means infinitely available under its license. These two are incompatible - unless some illegal license shenanigans are at play.

Stealing doesn't imply anything. It is taking someone else's posession.

In the case of gpl software, copying, and posessing a copy, and redistributing a copy of the code itself is not theft. The license grants those actions explicitly.

But the fact that the license grants those particular rights does not mean there is no license, and violating that license is exactly theft, which is what Mullenweg has done.

For someone persuing this whole pogrom under the banner of championing open source and being a good community member and challenging others integrity, this is about as hipocrytical and low as you can go. It would be a joke if it wasn't a fact.

I would not admit in public that you think that since a license does not require money, that means it has no owner or copyright and that it's impossible to steal it. Or that laws are the only thing that defines right and wrong and stealing. Money is just one of many terms in any agreement or contract or license.

> Where in the world, how the hell did you get the idea that stealing free code isn't stealing?

What is your personal definition of "free code" and "stealing free code"? From your post, either you got one of them profoundly wrong, or both.

The code was shared under a GPL license. If the license allows you to reuse, fork, etc, then it makes no sense to accuse you of "stealing".

Obviously there's more to it here as they've also taken over the plugin's reviews, users, etc, but the code is GPL.

Violating the terms (gpl) and taking over the name/identity/accreditation are what's stealing. Not merely using or redistributing.

It's not only stealing, it's an even worse, exceptionally low form of stealing when something is already free and yet you still choose to steal it.

Open source is open source. To my best knowledge I believe its stealing if you make use of resource an individual or group of people came together to develop and add minor adjustments to it and then put it up for sale. That's stealing.

But if you willingly able to contribute back to the community with between 20 - 40% of profit generated from the open source used, is and will be considered fair play.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com