We seem to live in an age of narrative over strict substance, unfortunately, and I think the author captured the narrative quite well, with a weakness or two on detail that you pointed out, so I appreciate your attempt to elevate the precision of the discussion.
I don't think people using the word extortion understand how it is defined in a legal sense and the gravity of the criminality. The word extortion as people use it could be replaced with 'threat' or 'ultimatum', with some sentiment of unethicality or unfairness added back in. Legally, it may be fine for Matt to make ultimatums: "contribute in one of the ways I demand, or my free WordPress.org API that I provide is no longer accesible to you", but as a community steward, it seems unfair to the many users of WPE who were not given that ultimatum with any notice (initially), or enough notice after the "reprieve" (Oct 1 still isn't enough notice.)
The only argument of Matt's I find compelling is that WPE's plan names look like a potential misuse of the WordPress mark. If I was WPE, that would be the only thing I would be worried about, and consider changing (though to do it right now might look like an admission of guilt.) If I was a judge, I would consider slapping WPE's wrist on that point, and considering WPE at most 1% at fault in this entire debacle based on facts available. I don't find the overall trademark confusion argument compelling (especially in light of WordPress.org vs WordPress.com confusion, and WordPress.org as Foundation vs WordPress.org as Matt the CEO of a competitor to WPE confusion), though if Matt wants me to believe his own mom is clueless, I will let him have that point.
After fault finding regarding acts of harm is done, then I'd be willing to consider which companies, including WPE, are leeching in a way that makes them not healthy members of the community, but only after all this is sorted out.
Putting aside all legal arguments, I agree with the directionality of Josh Collinsworth's main point regarding the health of the ecosystem.
To put in my own words: Matt's behavior with banning a host's customers from security and feature plugin updates from WordPress.org without sufficient warning (or clear enough reason) has damaged trust in a core single point of failure in the WordPress ecosystem -- I see no excuse for this -- and it is important for the ecosystem to restore this trust as soon as possible.
It's an unacceptable situation to begin with, that something that powers 43% of all sites on the Internet can have security updates degraded on the whim of one individual, no matter how much he contributed to the software in the past.
The most direct way to repair trust would seem to be at the very least to put WordPress.org's update server in the ownership and operation of someone else, preferably a functioning board who was bound to serve the community/ecosystem in a way that included minimizing ecosystem disrupting events like this one, and who established transparent guidelines on what sort of behavior can get a company banned from using these servers (and few mention they are also banned from future conferences). That this event came without warning to many users seems outrageous.
Another thing Josh has right: I and virtually all people hate, to a high degree, greedy ownership of corporations that intentionally lets quality rot as pricing is jacked up and money is squeezed out, so it is very remarkable that so many people think the more critical infraction to the community here is what Matt has done. This isn't about the greedy private equity firm or trademarks right now. It's about a bigger and more urgent problem. We have plenty of time to get back to corporate greed after the current emergency is resolved.
Even assuming the best was done behind closed doors, isn't it reasonable to WP Engine customers to give them notice of at least a few weeks or months that "unless your host complies, you will lose access to WordPress.org updates"?
If Matt can pull the rug on one host's customers without notice, he can do it again. He has been on streams saying no other host is in the doghouse with Matt, but a week ago almost nobody knew WPE was on thin ice.
If Matt didn't do the reasonable thing to warn WPE customers, what other unreasonable things is he capable of doing in the future?
The "reprieve" of a new Oct 1 deadline is still far from reasonable in my opinion to the point that it is further infuriating that he is using it to virtue signal, though it is at least a tiny start of an implicit acknowledgement that he screwed up. But it's a matter of rebuilding trust in the ecosystem now, and I think Matt is still digging a hole, and this can't be fixed until he apologizes, and the governance of the WordPress.org update server is clarified (best case: out of Matt's hands), or somebody more neutral creates a competing update server, fracturing the ecosystem.
The cookie example has implied social expectations with the intent of doing nice for individuals of the community.
A similar example: someone is moving out and puts a huge pile of furniture and assorted stuff on their front lawn with a sign that says "free to take", and some thrift store notices it and scoops it all, quickly. The giver is delighted, because he didn't want it to be slowly picked at piecemeal -- he just wanted it all gone. He doesn't care if the thrift store profited $10,000 off of sales.
Free software is something that benefits individual developers (like individual neighbors) and big businesses alike. Unlike cookies, if a company slurps it all up, it doesn't mean the kid next door doesn't get a cookie. It's digital, so you just make copies. Everyone om noms. Nobody has to feel guilty for taking a cookie, or a thousand cookies.
So I urge OSS developers: if you have some expectation of an ethos of giving back, either embed it into the license as a requirement, or a non-requirement footnote, or be up front of it in the project charter. Don't make assumptions that everyone interprets things the way you do, because it will inevitably be wrong as these OSS stories show time and time again.
I'm still just getting familiar with this WordPress situation and haven't watched the video yet, but in general for cases like these, it just makes the OSS author appear immature, maladjusted, like they're throwing a tantrum because somebody took them up on their offer of generosity, and now they have some sort of envy/jealousy over someone not living up to their end of the bargain that they never agreed to. It often seems backwards, dumb, reactionary, flailing, vindictive and so on, in ways that jeopardize the tantrum-maker's reputation. I don't know all the particulars of this case yet and while I have used WordPress.org (self-hosted and 3rd party host), I'm not deep into the ecosystem or a fanboy of anybody, so I'm reserving judgment but so far I am leaning towards this being yet another over emotional tantrum that was not well thought out or executed, that misses its target and is probably a PR problem.
So enough about how bad it looks. What should the target be?
OSS should be about generosity, voluntarism, and constructiveness, IMO. So the target should be about establishing societal norms about how much companies should be contributing, (to the extent it even makes sense). But you can't do what appears to be borderline extortion (according to people here) for $40 million dollars annually, with abuse of position (RSS feed), and then expect to be taken seriously as a good faith actor in what is a high-minded plea about having a more generous ethical society. It may be a way to draw attention to the topic and rekindle discussion, but it also starts the discussion on a sour note. There has got to be a better way to do this than for OSS authors to expend themselves like a grenade.
If they are "The most trusted WordPress platform", that implies there is more than one platform. That implies that none of them are first party WordPress. So I don't buy that.
(Regarding their plans, I think they would be safer to put the word 'Plan' at the end of their plan names.)
I know what you mean but if CNET Downloads advertised themselves as “The Most Trusted Source for Firefox” The Mozilla Foundation/Corporation would not allow this. A consumer new to the term WordPress might be given the impression that wpengine.com is a more trusted platform/source for the software than wordpress.org itself.
I don't think people using the word extortion understand how it is defined in a legal sense and the gravity of the criminality. The word extortion as people use it could be replaced with 'threat' or 'ultimatum', with some sentiment of unethicality or unfairness added back in. Legally, it may be fine for Matt to make ultimatums: "contribute in one of the ways I demand, or my free WordPress.org API that I provide is no longer accesible to you", but as a community steward, it seems unfair to the many users of WPE who were not given that ultimatum with any notice (initially), or enough notice after the "reprieve" (Oct 1 still isn't enough notice.)
The only argument of Matt's I find compelling is that WPE's plan names look like a potential misuse of the WordPress mark. If I was WPE, that would be the only thing I would be worried about, and consider changing (though to do it right now might look like an admission of guilt.) If I was a judge, I would consider slapping WPE's wrist on that point, and considering WPE at most 1% at fault in this entire debacle based on facts available. I don't find the overall trademark confusion argument compelling (especially in light of WordPress.org vs WordPress.com confusion, and WordPress.org as Foundation vs WordPress.org as Matt the CEO of a competitor to WPE confusion), though if Matt wants me to believe his own mom is clueless, I will let him have that point.
After fault finding regarding acts of harm is done, then I'd be willing to consider which companies, including WPE, are leeching in a way that makes them not healthy members of the community, but only after all this is sorted out.
Putting aside all legal arguments, I agree with the directionality of Josh Collinsworth's main point regarding the health of the ecosystem. To put in my own words: Matt's behavior with banning a host's customers from security and feature plugin updates from WordPress.org without sufficient warning (or clear enough reason) has damaged trust in a core single point of failure in the WordPress ecosystem -- I see no excuse for this -- and it is important for the ecosystem to restore this trust as soon as possible.
It's an unacceptable situation to begin with, that something that powers 43% of all sites on the Internet can have security updates degraded on the whim of one individual, no matter how much he contributed to the software in the past.
The most direct way to repair trust would seem to be at the very least to put WordPress.org's update server in the ownership and operation of someone else, preferably a functioning board who was bound to serve the community/ecosystem in a way that included minimizing ecosystem disrupting events like this one, and who established transparent guidelines on what sort of behavior can get a company banned from using these servers (and few mention they are also banned from future conferences). That this event came without warning to many users seems outrageous.
Another thing Josh has right: I and virtually all people hate, to a high degree, greedy ownership of corporations that intentionally lets quality rot as pricing is jacked up and money is squeezed out, so it is very remarkable that so many people think the more critical infraction to the community here is what Matt has done. This isn't about the greedy private equity firm or trademarks right now. It's about a bigger and more urgent problem. We have plenty of time to get back to corporate greed after the current emergency is resolved.