WordPress creator slams Wix: ‘Your app editor is built with stolen code’(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
WordPress creator slams Wix: ‘Your app editor is built with stolen code’
http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/28/wordpress-creator-matt-mullenweg-slams-wix-your-app-editor-is-built-with-stolen-code/
74 comments
How could they enforce the GPL against a company offering Wordpress as a SaaS application? This Wix app is different since it's a mobile app I believe. Unless WordPress uses a version of GPL that accounts for SaaS they couldn't do much about anything but someone offering on-prem solutions or actual apps right?
You are correct. Since WP is GPLv2, there's nothing to prevent a hosting provide installing WP, making changes, and charging for the 'enhanced' service and keeping the code for themselves, because the hosted app isn't being 'distributed' to end users. (There may indeed be some nuance if part of WP is client-side JavaScript...)
And this is exactly the case that Affero GPL was written for. (Affero is a modification to GPLv3.)
And this is exactly the case that Affero GPL was written for. (Affero is a modification to GPLv3.)
any recommended resources to learn more about licenses, differences and when to consider what?
While I don't know if this site offers advice, when I need a quick summary that explains the license the first place I check is https://tldrlegal.com
I'd like to know what is the most Stallmanite license out there. The kind that corporate lawyers would like to stay far away from, that forces downstream projects to be as open as the source.
Affero GPL. If the public can touch the product or service, you have to provide the source. My company avoids incorporating any GPL-licensed libraries, even those with linking exceptions.
The Open Source Initiative[1] is a good place to start.
1 - https://opensource.org/
1 - https://opensource.org/
They could switch to the AGPL https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.en.html
Does wordpress use much javascript now? IANAL, but if so, downloading it could count as distributing the under the GPL.
Wix developer replying: https://medium.com/@talkol/how-i-found-myself-accused-of-ste...
The WordPress GPL Rich Text component in question, is actually a wrapper around another Rich Text component named ZSSRichTextEditor which is licensed MIT. In retrospect it would have been easier to use it directly.
Yes, that would have been a much better decision, for a library to use in a closed-source app. Ripping out the GPL code and substituting the MIT code should be the next thing you do. Then you can apologize to all of us for not understanding how popular software licenses work.
Yes, that would have been a much better decision, for a library to use in a closed-source app. Ripping out the GPL code and substituting the MIT code should be the next thing you do. Then you can apologize to all of us for not understanding how popular software licenses work.
What a perfect response. He evidently has cause to take Automattic to task, yet he turns the whole thing on its head for the benefit of Wix. Masterful.
"Good artists borrow, great artists steal"
More seriously, he hasn't actually shown any stolen code, just that the app feels "surprisingly familiar" https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/
Edit: I just checked the Android app and having a package named "org.wordpress.android.editor" matching the stuff in https://github.com/wix/WordPress-Editor-Android/tree/9f0e776... is pretty convincing.
More seriously, he hasn't actually shown any stolen code, just that the app feels "surprisingly familiar" https://ma.tt/2016/10/wix-and-the-gpl/
Edit: I just checked the Android app and having a package named "org.wordpress.android.editor" matching the stuff in https://github.com/wix/WordPress-Editor-Android/tree/9f0e776... is pretty convincing.
Matt links to the relevant GitHub repo in his blog post: https://github.com/wix/react-native-wordpress-editor
If you look at that repo, what they are doing is totally unambiguous. The README literally acknowledges that they are using Wordpress code, describing the contents of the repository as a "React Native Wrapper for WordPress Rich Text Editor."
They applied the MIT license to their wrapper, which is using the GPL-licensed Wordpress code, and then they embed the whole thing in their proprietary app. They are now compelled to publish the source code of their entire application if they want to comply with the requirements of the GPL.
If you look at that repo, what they are doing is totally unambiguous. The README literally acknowledges that they are using Wordpress code, describing the contents of the repository as a "React Native Wrapper for WordPress Rich Text Editor."
They applied the MIT license to their wrapper, which is using the GPL-licensed Wordpress code, and then they embed the whole thing in their proprietary app. They are now compelled to publish the source code of their entire application if they want to comply with the requirements of the GPL.
If they don't distribute it (SaaS only) then they do not need to publish anything.
That's not necessarily true. Some licenses consider html itself as protected code.
It's an iOS application. They are distributing it in the iOS App Store.
He mentioned that you can look and see on GitHub that Wix explicitly forked Wordpress repositories.
The gist I got was this - Wordpress was working on this in open source. Wix took their work, built on it, and didn't make their contributions open source, taking advantage of the repository and giving nothing back.
The gist I got was this - Wordpress was working on this in open source. Wix took their work, built on it, and didn't make their contributions open source, taking advantage of the repository and giving nothing back.
>>Wix took their work, built on it, and didn't make their contributions open source, taking advantage of the repository and giving nothing back.
Which is fine if the code was BSD licensed, but the article states that Wordpress uses GPL, hence Wix may be violating the license regardless of the breach in attribution etiquette.
Which is fine if the code was BSD licensed, but the article states that Wordpress uses GPL, hence Wix may be violating the license regardless of the breach in attribution etiquette.
Although it seems against the spirit of GPL, the GPL doesn't explicitly protect against code hosted as a service, so the wix website isn't in violation. That's why AGPL exists.
IANAL, but their private fork (I couldn't find a public one on Github) is also technically permissible, as it's not a redistribution of the code.
Edit: if what's in question are strictly web assets (images, js, etc), then I'm pretty sure, but not certain, this is a violation
IANAL, but their private fork (I couldn't find a public one on Github) is also technically permissible, as it's not a redistribution of the code.
Edit: if what's in question are strictly web assets (images, js, etc), then I'm pretty sure, but not certain, this is a violation
But the app is? If they release a modified version of a GPL Android app, they would need to supply the source code, no? The Wix app would constitute a derived work.
That seems fair. The GPL has a loophole for network-provided services, but apps are native.
Correct, unless WordPress goes AGPL then Wix can keep their hosted code to themselves. However, the Android App which they should of made themselves will need to be open sourced or taken down and open sourced. The GPL if I remember correctly makes it so upon request (thinking of BMW) you must be able to provide access to the source code, even if you sell the product, that means that whoever buys a GPL'd product from you must also receive the code, but if they didn't buy your product there should be no reason for them to have it if I'm not mistaken. The GPL is interesting, and while not my first choice, it's definitely not a terrible choice.
GPL is absolutely useless for commercial products, imo. Unless you can run it encapsulated on some sort of web service as a standalone executable. If the goal is to have more open source code, and more code sharing across systems and services then more code should actually be BSD licensed.
I don't think it's completely useless. If you have software you invested a lot of money into and the company goes out of business and you have your own internal engineers (maybe you didn't want to go this route beforehand because said product was good enough) now you can carry on without the main company. In the case of WordPress unless they disappear somehow, that is when a fork will come. Look at LibreOffice vs OpenOffice. MariaDB is a great example of someone selling a product they made for a LOT of money, and then continuing on with it, now that Oracle has taken MySQL some have taken to using MariaDB instead. Don't knock the GPL, it makes many things possible.
I totally agree on that, _BUT_ I can't use it in a commercial product without releasing my entire commercial source code? The GPL prohibits many commercial applications, and even if I would want to use in something, I often cannot, because it's not feasible to release my entire codebase. There's a lot of GPL software that's just off limits, exactly because of that. In a way, it contaminates commercial codebases. That makes me sad, because a lot of GPL code is of top notch quality.
Why not opt for a BSD license? The things you wrote also apply to BSD licensed open-source software.
Why not opt for a BSD license? The things you wrote also apply to BSD licensed open-source software.
If you're releasing your code, it's only to the customer. The one's who receive the code are only the ones who receive the binaries and ONLY upon request, think BMW's code they released upon a customers request. Sometimes it's better to use GPL or BSD, because some customers will not use your product if there is no code to guarantee if your company disappears they can't move on without you. Look at WordPress, their code's right there, and yet nobody can overshadow them yet.
Edit:
I agree with you, but I was mentioning GPL because you placed it in question. BSD is great, MS-PL is a little nicer if you need to protect any patents too.
Edit:
I agree with you, but I was mentioning GPL because you placed it in question. BSD is great, MS-PL is a little nicer if you need to protect any patents too.
Sounds like the GPL working exactly as intended.
I don't even understand what the point in doing this would be, given they're a publicly traded company. Seems like a very careless decision. If they liked the app, they should've just copied the concept and feel of the app but rewritten the actual code. That way the GPL license would not apply.
How much would that cost? A few hundred thousand?
How much would that cost? A few hundred thousand?
You're assuming this is a decision made by executives, as opposed to lazy developers.
FYI: Wix open-sourced a ton of react-native stuff built internally to write the app in question: https://github.com/wix?utf8=%E2%9C%93&query=react-native
Reading the whole passage is much more illuminating than that misattributed drek that Jobs misquoted thanks, likely, to a poorly researched biography:
“One of the surest tests of the superiority or inferiority of a poet is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate mature poets steal bad poets deface what they take and good poets make it into something better or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique utterly different than that from which it is torn the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time or alien in language or diverse in interest.”
T.S. Eliot
“One of the surest tests of the superiority or inferiority of a poet is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate mature poets steal bad poets deface what they take and good poets make it into something better or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique utterly different than that from which it is torn the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time or alien in language or diverse in interest.”
T.S. Eliot
Did Eliot have something against the comma? Just wondering...
No, it's Goodreads that has mangled it; there is a better and complete version at Bartleby: http://www.bartleby.com/200/sw11.html.
We turn first to the parallel quotations from Massinger and Shakespeare collocated by Mr. Cruickshank to make manifest Massinger’s indebtedness. One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest. Chapman borrowed from Seneca; Shakespeare and Webster from Montaigne. The two great followers of Shakespeare, Webster and Tourneur, in their mature work do not borrow from him; he is too close to them to be of use to them in this way. Massinger, as Mr. Cruickshank shows, borrows from Shakespeare a good deal. Let us profit by some of the quotations with which he has provided us— Massinger: Can I call back yesterday, with all their aids That bow unto my sceptre? or restore My mind to that tranquillity and peace It then enjoyed?
Shakespeare: Not poppy, nor mandragora, Nor all the drowsy syrops of the world Shall ever medecine thee to that sweet sleep Which thou owedst yesterday.
We turn first to the parallel quotations from Massinger and Shakespeare collocated by Mr. Cruickshank to make manifest Massinger’s indebtedness. One of the surest of tests is the way in which a poet borrows. Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion. A good poet will usually borrow from authors remote in time, or alien in language, or diverse in interest. Chapman borrowed from Seneca; Shakespeare and Webster from Montaigne. The two great followers of Shakespeare, Webster and Tourneur, in their mature work do not borrow from him; he is too close to them to be of use to them in this way. Massinger, as Mr. Cruickshank shows, borrows from Shakespeare a good deal. Let us profit by some of the quotations with which he has provided us— Massinger: Can I call back yesterday, with all their aids That bow unto my sceptre? or restore My mind to that tranquillity and peace It then enjoyed?
Shakespeare: Not poppy, nor mandragora, Nor all the drowsy syrops of the world Shall ever medecine thee to that sweet sleep Which thou owedst yesterday.
How should he show code when the Wix app is closed source?
His post mentions "icons, class names, even bugs". That seems damning (just ripping icons would be a copyright violation on its own).
His post mentions "icons, class names, even bugs". That seems damning (just ripping icons would be a copyright violation on its own).
Well, any code that was built on top of GPLed code needs not to be closed source, in order to comply with the license that they accessed the code under.
No disagreement there. Mathnerd314 asked for proof of stolen code, which of course is difficult to provide when we're talking about a closed source product. So the original authors must resort to indirect proof like comparing visuals and inspecting the binary.
[deleted]
That code is about inspiration, not about literal theft.
CEO of Wix responded: http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-...
About "everything we improved there or modified, we submitted back as open source", the GPL doesn't let you redistribute modified code and only release the modified code unfortunately. I guess "we will release the app you saw as well" may mean that they'd open source the whole app and thus be compliant.
Also the fact that the company was once also known as "Wixpress" is easy to verify [1], not sure why he would contest that.
[1] http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193...
Also the fact that the company was once also known as "Wixpress" is easy to verify [1], not sure why he would contest that.
[1] http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-29IDMU/0x0xS1193...
What an airhead. It's all about feelings and impressions and mutual admiration! No, it's not about those things. You violated a license, and you got called on it. Fix your shit, apologize, and move on. Don't dump a PR load on us without bothering to learn and understand what you did wrong.
A lot of people here are missing one of the core tenants of the GPL, in that any linked application must also be GPL.
Wix developers created an MIT licensed wrapper to bypass this restriction. In the terms of the GPL that isn't allowed. This is why you see BSD or MIT code being ported to the Linux kernel but it doesn't go back the other way.
Calling it stolen code is a little strong, in reality they are in violation of the GPL. If the Wordpress plugin has been LGPL or MIT then it wouldn't be an issue.
Wix developers created an MIT licensed wrapper to bypass this restriction. In the terms of the GPL that isn't allowed. This is why you see BSD or MIT code being ported to the Linux kernel but it doesn't go back the other way.
Calling it stolen code is a little strong, in reality they are in violation of the GPL. If the Wordpress plugin has been LGPL or MIT then it wouldn't be an issue.
Can someone clarify?
WP is not only SAAS, but also packaged software. You can use WP's platform to host your blog, or run it on your own server.
Wix is strictly SAAS, AFAIK (can I get a few more abbreviations in there?). You can only use their software on their platform - there is no packaged software that you can run on your own server.
Is this a GPLv3 thing? Did they somehow plug the SAAS hole?
Otherwise, it doesn't seem Mullenweg/WP has a leg to stand on.
WP is not only SAAS, but also packaged software. You can use WP's platform to host your blog, or run it on your own server.
Wix is strictly SAAS, AFAIK (can I get a few more abbreviations in there?). You can only use their software on their platform - there is no packaged software that you can run on your own server.
Is this a GPLv3 thing? Did they somehow plug the SAAS hole?
Otherwise, it doesn't seem Mullenweg/WP has a leg to stand on.
Don't get me wrong, but doesn't the gpl allow for (or at least not stop) you to charge for the code?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Couldn't wix just charge some ungodly sum and be done until someone ponies up the $$$?
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html
Couldn't wix just charge some ungodly sum and be done until someone ponies up the $$$?
If you are granted access to the compiled version to a piece of software covered by the GPL then the GPL grants you the right to request source for that software. For Wix to do what you suggest would also mean they would have to price the compiled app out of range its intended audience would pay thus making the app pointless.
Wix CEO open letter:
http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-...
http://www.wix.com/blog/2016/10/dear-matt-mullenweg-an-open-...
[deleted]
So copyright infringement isn't 'theft', yet violating the GNU is theft? You can't download a car....
I'm really tired of these arguments. If you release something and say that it's 'free', it's pretty disingenuous to chase after someone for not releasing their own changes.
Calling it 'theft' doesn't really make sense because nothing of value was actually stolen. The original code is still there for all to enjoy.
Most places I've worked stay away from GNU code (besides compilers, servers, and anything not used in the main product) like the plague because of people like Matt Mullenweg.
I would much rather have the BSD license, which is truly free for everyone.
UPDATE: I always thought HN was the place for intelligent discourse, yet I am always disappointed.
I'm really tired of these arguments. If you release something and say that it's 'free', it's pretty disingenuous to chase after someone for not releasing their own changes.
Calling it 'theft' doesn't really make sense because nothing of value was actually stolen. The original code is still there for all to enjoy.
Most places I've worked stay away from GNU code (besides compilers, servers, and anything not used in the main product) like the plague because of people like Matt Mullenweg.
I would much rather have the BSD license, which is truly free for everyone.
UPDATE: I always thought HN was the place for intelligent discourse, yet I am always disappointed.
You are being downvoted because you misunderstood the GPL, which is a heavy fault in the software community.
GPL says: "If you take GPL code, you must publish the whole app as GPL." In the GPL mindset, open-source is contagious. Therefore if you package GPL code with a commercial license, then you've shipped software you didn't legally have a license for, which is grounds for unlimited damages. By the way, this is why your company stays away from GPL, not "People like Matt Mullenweg".
GPL says: "If you take GPL code, you must publish the whole app as GPL." In the GPL mindset, open-source is contagious. Therefore if you package GPL code with a commercial license, then you've shipped software you didn't legally have a license for, which is grounds for unlimited damages. By the way, this is why your company stays away from GPL, not "People like Matt Mullenweg".
GPL is Free as in "don't use this if you want to close it".
If you infringe the copyright on something closed, you do it by spreading that thing when you aren't supposed to. If you infringe the copyright on something open, you do it by refusing to distribute your enhancements to it when you're required to. They're not directly comparable situations.
Freedom goes in two directions. "Freedom to" and "Freedom from". The BSD license is a "Freedom to enhance the code as you wish" license. The GPL licenses are "Freedom from someone enhancing the code without sharing those enhancements". A "freedom to" license is great in the short term; it encourages individual products. A "freedom from" license is great in the long term; it encourages growth of the ecosystem as a whole.
Calling it "theft" is a stretch, just like in other cases of copyright violation. Still, the community is owed a release of the modified code. "Theft" captures the spirit of the situation, even if it's not applicable in the literal sense.
If you infringe the copyright on something closed, you do it by spreading that thing when you aren't supposed to. If you infringe the copyright on something open, you do it by refusing to distribute your enhancements to it when you're required to. They're not directly comparable situations.
Freedom goes in two directions. "Freedom to" and "Freedom from". The BSD license is a "Freedom to enhance the code as you wish" license. The GPL licenses are "Freedom from someone enhancing the code without sharing those enhancements". A "freedom to" license is great in the short term; it encourages individual products. A "freedom from" license is great in the long term; it encourages growth of the ecosystem as a whole.
Calling it "theft" is a stretch, just like in other cases of copyright violation. Still, the community is owed a release of the modified code. "Theft" captures the spirit of the situation, even if it's not applicable in the literal sense.
[deleted]
Your comment reads like you don’t understand either 1. the intention of the GPL (copyleft), 2. how it’s supposed to work (requiring derivative works to also be GPL), or 3. you don't think it’s legally enforceable (it is).
Whether or not the GPL is a ‘good thing’, the scenario in question is pretty cut and dry. The problem itsn’t “people like Matt Mullenweg”, it’s people and organizations who don’t RTFM on the licenses of the code they decide to co-opt into their mainline product. It looks an awful lot like Wix is afoul of the GPL, and therefore has probably committed copyright infringement.
Whether or not the GPL is a ‘good thing’, the scenario in question is pretty cut and dry. The problem itsn’t “people like Matt Mullenweg”, it’s people and organizations who don’t RTFM on the licenses of the code they decide to co-opt into their mainline product. It looks an awful lot like Wix is afoul of the GPL, and therefore has probably committed copyright infringement.
There is a BIG difference between "stealing" a copyright work and just watch it yourself, and stealing a copyright work to make millions of copies and sell them for profit.
Note that GNU allows you to actually do make millions of copies and sell them for profit! BUT you must also allow those who buy it to also do so! You can not take away those rights.
Note that GNU allows you to actually do make millions of copies and sell them for profit! BUT you must also allow those who buy it to also do so! You can not take away those rights.
Your update is funny because you got intelligent responses to your unintelligent post
I prefer the BSD license to the GPL myself, but I downvoted you because you seem to be coming from a deliberately obtuse point of view just to cause controversy, not intelligent discourse as you are claiming to want. In other words, you commented with the full expectation of being downvoted just so you would have a reason to complain. I may be wrong of course, please correct me if so.
Again, despite my preference for the BSD license I side with Wordpress on this issue; it's a clear violation of the GPL and should be enforced.
Again, despite my preference for the BSD license I side with Wordpress on this issue; it's a clear violation of the GPL and should be enforced.
That's why it comes with GPL - which means , you can use it subject to this agreement . so sounds like 'theft' is right word to pick .
I think it is a fitting punishment for those who copy parts of the Wordpress codebase in their product that they must now maintain Wordpress code in their product.
The reason why someone would use something like Wix is that they don't have to deal with source code. So they wouldn't lose any business if they released their source code. They might even gain good will and popularity by doing so.
It's not about customers, it's about competitors.
You mean they won't have to deal with hosting, 99% of Wordpress users don't look at the source code, same with Ghost, Drupal, Silverstripe, etc.
Do you think Wordpress would make more or less money if they where open/closed source ?
I think they probably wouldn't be in business if they were closed source. They built a business on top of an open source product which already existed (but was created and maintained by the CEO of Wordpress) that open source platform allows them to claim that they run 25% of the internet with the consequent brand awareness and ecosystem.
So WordPress finally created something that can be reused outside of the walled garden in other competing projects. Yay! https://medium.com/@velmu/dear-drupal-and-wordpress-please-c...
I just hope Wix then pushes their changes to the editor. And then we can in the future use the UI components of the WP Apocalypse project: https://github.com/Automattic/wp-calypso/tree/master/client/...
I just hope Wix then pushes their changes to the editor. And then we can in the future use the UI components of the WP Apocalypse project: https://github.com/Automattic/wp-calypso/tree/master/client/...
If he had a case, he wouldn't be giving interviews about it. He'd be suing them. And he'd be right to do so.
The fact that he's slinging accusations in print rather than using the legal system to settle a legal dispute suggests to me that he does not, in fact, have any evidence Wix is doing anything untoward beyond "this smells kinda fishy to me."
The fact that he's slinging accusations in print rather than using the legal system to settle a legal dispute suggests to me that he does not, in fact, have any evidence Wix is doing anything untoward beyond "this smells kinda fishy to me."
In cases like this, the court of public opinion can often be all that is necessary to resolve the issue and push the violator to do the right thing. This avoids costly litigation and makes things easier on both sides. If the violator chooses to ignore the public outcry, then certainly there is the legal path to follow next.
In a non-software example, if my neighbor intends to violate my property line with his new fence plans, I'll drop by, have a glass of lemonade with him, and discuss the issue. If we come to an agreement about the property line and can resolve the issue right there, that's the best outcome. If he insists on continuing to violate my rights even after we talked about it, only then would I seek legal recourse. To jump straight to court over it not only costs me and him a ton of money, it costs something more valuable: A fractured neighbor-to-neighbor relationship, ensuring that any future encounters will be hostile and costly.
In a non-software example, if my neighbor intends to violate my property line with his new fence plans, I'll drop by, have a glass of lemonade with him, and discuss the issue. If we come to an agreement about the property line and can resolve the issue right there, that's the best outcome. If he insists on continuing to violate my rights even after we talked about it, only then would I seek legal recourse. To jump straight to court over it not only costs me and him a ton of money, it costs something more valuable: A fractured neighbor-to-neighbor relationship, ensuring that any future encounters will be hostile and costly.
Very frequently the goal of licensing with the GPL and challenging violators is not financial gain (or punishment) but to force the violators to comply with the license and release the offending code.
Going to court to force release of said code is a much more expensive stick that can be held over the offending party's head.
Going to court to force release of said code is a much more expensive stick that can be held over the offending party's head.
Automatically suing every time you think you have a case does not seem like a smart move. Suing someone turns a disagreement into a war. Starting out with a blog post and escalating from there seems like a much more diplomatic and sensible approach.
It was awesome, super popular and could have been WordPress today.
They raised funding. Possibly under VC pressure, they made the license terms more closed source and restrictive.
Meanwhile, Matt Mullenweg had forked b2 and created WordPress under GPL.
When MovableType went closed source/more restrictive, their users fled to WordPress. The rest is pretty much history.
So what this historical context helps us understand is that firstly, WordPress/Automattic is very careful about ever going closed source with anything because they learned their lessons thanks to MovableType and what happened to them.
So WP has chosen to be open source, stay open source and defend open source because history has shown that is what the market wants and if you don't do that, they'll divorce you.
Living in that world as a multi-million (billion?) dollar company is a tough gig because, as Matt himself did with B2, anyone can fork your code and run with it.
But the one thing that WP/Automattic can count on is the GPL. If someone does fork the code, they are forever bound by the same competitive constraints that Automattic/WP is bound by. In other words: someone else can fork their code and so on in perpetuity.
So as long as WP enforces the GPL over WordPress, they will never have a competitor stronger than they are who can develop proprietary IP off their platform and gain a competitive advantage. The GPL ensures that anything created out of WordPress is always available to all competitors. And the competitor with the greatest head-start wins and that's WordPress.
This is really the basis for how multi-billion dollar companies are built out of open source. They count on the GPL to ensure everything they create never becomes a proprietary competitive advantage to a competitor that isn't also available to them.
So Matt M has a strategic imperative to always enforce the GPL on everything open source they do, or else they're building the foundation of the company that will kill them.