3 ms·
The use of which were already allowed under the existing open source licenses... In other words, a shakedown by another name. Also, suggesting that WPE's cont
by gamblor956 2y ago
The use of which were already allowed under the existing open source licenses...
In other words, a shakedown by another name.
Also, suggesting that WPE's contributions to the non-profit could be satisfied by paying Matt's for-profit company is almost the textbook definition of private inurement. I don't think he had lawyers familiar with non-profit law clear that offer before he made it. If I worked for the IRS right now WP and Matt would be pretty high on the list of organizations to take a closer look at.
- tptacek 2y agoCan you be more specific about where the WordPress licensing grants the trademark usage WPE is using? WordPress is GPL2, which doesn't have a lot to say about trademarks.
- graeme 2y agoIsn't it just the law? Not obvious that terms such as "Wordpress Host" violate nominative fair use. They're commonly used throughout the industry as well.
- tptacek 2y agoI would like to understand what "[t]he use of which were already allowed under the existing open source licenses..." from the preceding comment meant. I'm not a lawyer. Nominative fair use is complicated, as is WPE's use of the WP marks. All I can hope for here is to understand what claims people are making.
- graeme 2y agoAh, fair point. Yeah I agree, the open source licenses have no bearing on the matter. Only permissions would come from either trademark law or a negotiated agreement.
- FireBeyond 2y ago> use of the WP marks I realize you may just have been abbreviating, but until the middle of this current dispute, the WordPress Foundation explicitly allowed the use of "WP". Matt just edited it after framing it as a trademark issue.
- tptacek 2y agoYes, I'm just abbreviating.
- gamblor956 2y agoYes, it's basic trademark law. Matt's supporters are deliberately trying to obfuscate several issues to make it look like Matt is in the right. Matt's was alleging violations of the license and the trademark. And he's wrong on both accounts.