To implement continuous authentication, mobile developers must support fine-grained enterprise security policies about the person, device state and authenticator. An embeddable Policy Decision Point (PDP) is essential for lightning fast policy evaluation, consistent decision logging, and advanced JWT validation.
This is a trademark dispute. WP-Engine uses the trademark, and made a tactical decision not to license it. Their thought was better to ask for forgiveness later then pay up front. Protecting your trademark is critical for an organization governing an open source product. Just look at Docker to see what happens when you lose control of your trademark. Last I checked, most owners aggressively protect their trademark. It's one of the few IP protections open source companies have. Why are you all defending the freeloading open source strip miner? Is WP Engine's use of the trademark fair use? Something tells me that they will end up settling this out of court...
Bollocks and hallucinatory nonsense. The trademark page had made it abundantly clear that use of "WP" was not protected by trademark and only made it an issue ex-post-facto when Matt decided one day that he didn't like the competition. The trademark claims are bollocks, nonsense, bogus — entirely without merit.
If you don't like your open source work being used by others to do for-profit things then don't license it as GPL or don't open source it to begin with. You can't retroactively come out and complain after the fact once you've already given all your IP away and made it abundantly clear that "WP" isn't a trademark, and BY THE WAY the jurisprudence on trademark law makes it difficult to even try to claim a trademark or servicemark from two letters put together!
We will see. You can say it's bollocks, but I'm betting you are not an IP lawyer. Silverlake, the PE firm that acquired WP-Engine has a gaggle of IP lawyers that assessed the risk before the investment. Were they right or wrong? Like any sporting event, everyone has a strong opinion before the game. But it's only the final score that matters. I'm wishing Automatic the best of luck.
No one ever won a law suit by putting forward a tepid case. They will position for maximum damage as a bargaining position, just like any of you would.
Are you talking about Automattic? I'm not talking about the lawsuit, I'm talking about the things surrounding. Especially the checkbox when logging into Wordpress.org in which you must proclaim you aren't affiliated with WPEngine.
That is simply terrible behavior, one that impacts users, not just WPEngine. I personally will never use Wordpress again because of this.
Note: the definition of an entrepreneur is someone who doesn't listen to advice (some of it good). This dude says you're startup is "zombie"... Well, he might be right, but if you see an opportunity there... That's what makes you smart. And in 10 years if you're successful, the same people who said your idea was bad will be saying it was obvious.
As a solo founder for 10+ years, what I can say is that all "rules" in business are "rules of thumb"... Not laws. It's ok to be a solo founder... Sometimes. Bounce ideas off your team instead of your co-founders. Make use of mentors. There is a workaround for all your challenges. I also recommend listening to podcasts with other founders. I host a podcast called "Open Source Underdogs". Lots of good advice there for all founders... Even if you're not working on open source. But there are plenty more. You need outside ideas... Just seek them out.
Don't burn out your friends talking about your startup. It's not that they aren't interested. But nobody needs a single vector relationship.
Also remember that VC's give tons of bad advice to founders. Or rather founders tend to put VC's on a pedestal, and misinterpret what they are saying as advice, when it is really just filter, convenient lies or lazy analysis. Be hugely skeptical of anything VC's tell you, including "you need co-founders".
Solo founder for 5+ years. The above message is right on point.
One things that I realized is that what happens to your business tells more about what _market_ you are in, that it tells about yourself as a founder.
A great entrepreneur in a bad market will still have a bad outcome, and vice versa. Like a program is not about the programmer, a business is not "about" its founding member(s).
So a good advice you don't hear often could be "start in an easy market".
Looks like an interesting podcast! Unfortunately, my podcast client doesn't load anything earlier than episode 22, and Spotify doesn't either - it looks like the RSS feed doesn't contain the earlier episodes. Is that expected behavior?
I was particularly surprised to learn that Moodle is open-source. I used it in school before the world of software development and open-source was on my radar.
I'm recording a podcast, called Open Source Underdogs, focusing on open source business models. You can find it on iTunes, Google, Stitcher, etc or on the website https://opensourceunderdogs.com
IBM just made it's biggest acquisition ever on an open source company... It seems strange to use that as evidence that open source is not an effective tool--in certain circumstances--for building your business.
What about Cloudera? What about Automattic? What about MongoDB? What about MariaDB?
The podcast has 9 episodes, and we have about 20 more in the queue for 2018-2019.
Tune in... Some of the gurus of open source software share some valuable insights.
> IBM just made it's biggest acquisition ever on an open source company... It seems strange to use that as evidence that open source is not an effective tool--in certain circumstances--for building your business.
It's more about sustaining the business. Redhat's most recently reported quarterly earnings growth was negative. Did they sell now because IBM approached them with an absurdly high price? Or did Redhat executives need to shop around for a buyer, because they felt they were near a local maxima and things were starting to go downhill?
edit: that said, this is a subject I care about and will be adding your podcast shortly. Hopefully you figure out podcast sustainability as well =)
I think they sold because they were offered $34 billion. Although Red Hat IPOd quite a long time ago, I think a lot of the movers and shakers were sitting on a lot of stock. That's a big exit.
IBM obviously thinks it's worth it, but I'll be honest and say that no matter how bullish I am on Red Hat's business model, I'm sceptical that they can grow it significantly larger without some help. Clearly the focus is on cloud computing and you're up against Google, Amazon and Microsoft. Without at least a strategic partner with someone like IBM (or, ick, ick, ick, Oracle) it's going to be pretty hard to go toe to toe with those guys. In that context, making a "partnership" (agreeing to be bought out) and making a massively big payday for the principal stock holders is pretty win-win for Red Hat.
Having said that, I seriously wonder if IBM is at all interested in maintaining Red Hat's business model...
I am CEO of Gluu. The podcast is an undertaking to help new open source software companies. There is no business model for the podcast, and it's attribution share alike license.
Wait, are you really looking at the second derivative of the revenue? Q2 revenue (September 2018) was up 14% against September 2017.
Red Hat would probably have reached a local maximum sooner or later, so it's probably a mix of the two, but I don't think it's correct to say that growth was negative.
Oh I see that now. That was explained by the company as basically a single very large contract that was lost to a competitor, plus a very very strong second quarter the previous year (when you earnings growth was over 40%). However earnings per share were actually above the analysts expectations.
Yea, I imagined it could be a one-off but didn't bother to dig into the situation further. The point is simply that we don't fully know the motivation to sell. Or for that matter, the motivation to buy. For all we know, that competitor is continuing to squeeze RHT's margins. Or maybe Oracle (purveyors of Oracle Unbreakable Linux) approached the board with an offer to buy and someone walked it over to IBM with a note saying 'care to beat this offer from Oracle?'
None of this is evidence suggesting there will be another standalone open source vendor. The model seems to be converging towards taking open source technologies, buying a bunch of servers and sysadmins, and renting them out to customers on an ad-hoc basis. In which case, I won't call it winner-take-all but there's obvious economies of scale to be had. If we look at the recent Redis and MongoDB relicensing debacles, it seems like a direct acknowledgement that the cloud service model is eating their lunch.
I prefer my HyperFIDO Mini. The Nano sends OTP text if you accidentally brush into something, and it's very awkward to get out. The light is "blinding" ??? That is ridiculous...
Auth0's business model is a race to zero. Microsoft, Google, Salesforce, Oracle and others (for example Okta, Onelogin in the startup arena) are going to force their prices down to practically nothing. The per user pricing model in the identity space is loved by insipid venture capitalists who like simple "back of the envelope" math, but customers hate it. You are penalizing customers for using your service--rewarding them for putting as few users as possible in the system. Also, there is no one-size fits all value for users--some users are more valuable then others (for example, an employee versus a one-time ecommerce customer who buys a t-shirt). So you end up trying to price users differently, which undermines your value story. What's more likely to happen is that open standards will increase competition and centralized service providers who add very little value, and are big targets for hackers, will be lucky to get out alive.
