6 ms·

There's a "no forking" clause in the term sheet Automattic sent to WP Engine: https://automattic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/term-sheet-wp-engine-inc.-autom

There's a "no forking" clause in the term sheet Automattic sent to WP Engine: https://automattic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/term-sheet-wp-engine-inc.-automattic-trademark-license_09.19.2024-1.pdf https://automattic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/term-sheet... IANAL, but the WordPress license (GPLv2) says that if you attempt to sublicense the software or otherwise distribute it under different terms, you forfeit your own license to it: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance." WordPress is itself a fork, with no copyright assignments, so Matt has no ability to change the license. Given this, is it legal for WordPress.com to continue using and distributing the WordPress software as we speak?

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
This is an excellent question! From my armchair, it would appear a valid reading, but IANAL and all.
photomatt 2y ago
This was a separate agreement from their GPL license, which of course allows them to fork. Sorry it's not clear from the term sheet, but this was about them forking our Stripe extension to replace the attribution from us to them for WooCommerce sites hosted on WP Engine. Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- DannyBee 2y ago
  I think you missed the point. They (i know it's you but easier to not personalize it here) do not own all the rights to the software themselves. For the parts they do not own, they have no rights other than what they got through GPLv2. Those rights are conditioned upon them not trying to sublicense/etc the software in a way that conflicts with GPLv2. Which this term sheet purports to do.
  - photomatt 2y ago
    The agreement wasn't about their license to the code, it was about their license to the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. They could agree to not do things allowed under the GPL, like replacing our Stripe attribution, it's their right to. Or not.
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      "The agreement wasn't about their license to the code," Maybe you misread it (or miswrote it i guess)? it says: "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying any of Automattic’s, WooCommerce’s, or its affiliates' software (including, but not limited to plugins and extensions) ..." It could not more plainly say that they cannot fork or modify software.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - jasonlotito 2y ago
        "The agreement wasn't about their license to the [GPL] code," And "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying [non GPL code]" You are misreading it.
        greyface- 2y ago
        > License: GPLv3 https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gateway-stripe/trunk/readme.txt https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gatew...
        the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
        How can a plugin be GPLv3 when the core is GPLv2? //edit: apparently the core is v2 or later.
        2y ago
- numbsafari 2y ago
  [flagged]
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  > Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy. Stripe thinks that an affiliate using their affiliate link is spammy, but that you, another affiliate, publishing yours with WordPress is not? Also, I'm sure you think they entirely agree with you, but maybe consider they may not (don't) want you to speak for them while you're being sued...
DannyBee 2y ago
A few things: First, something general - one thing to keep in mind is that open source folks think of these things as license violations/etc, but that's not actually a thing, legally. Breach of contract and copyright infringement are. That is how a claim would be analyzed. Not as a "GPL violation". Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. This is fairly relevant because: 1. The general view on GPLv2 is that you gain a shiny new license every time you receive a new copy from someone else. In other words, you have signed a new contract. So while your rights may have been terminated the existing contracted copy (and you would be liable for distributing or ... that one), if you just get a new copy from someone else, congrats, new contract. This is supported by the license: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." Let's assume this was not true 2. Wordpress is actually GPLv2 or later. GPLv3 has a notice and cure period. Under GPLv3, they would still be within the cure period (unless i screwed up the timeframe :P), and would have not lost a license yet. 3. GPLV3 has a more complex termination mechanism to try to deal with notice, cure, and the issue in #1. In short, worst case, if they are claiming to use it as licensed by GPLv2, it would be fairly easy to cure the ability to distribute new copies. They could do nothing about violations that exist in existing copies (and would not be allowed to continue distributing those). I realize how insane this sounds, since it's basically saying "These bits over here are red but these same exact bits over here are green", but that's life in the legal realm sometimes. For sure, if they do nothing, explicitly, they would be in bad shape, legally, in the worst case. GPLv3 is a more complex question. Also: there are those that strongly disagree with the view in #1 and believe you lose all rights forever unless they are reinstated. Rather than try to say who is right or wrong, i tried to give you where general consensus seems to lie. That is not something you should take to court, it's closer to "if you surveyed 100 open source lawyers what would most think"
- EMIRELADERO 2y ago
  > Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. If you think about it in that way, copyright infringement is out of the picture completely because of the statutory exception. 17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
immibis 2y ago
Obviously not. Everyone who contributed to WordPress now has the right to sue Automattic for 100% of its profits.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

This is an excellent question! From my armchair, it would appear a valid reading, but IANAL and all.

photomatt 2y ago

This was a separate agreement from their GPL license, which of course allows them to fork. Sorry it's not clear from the term sheet, but this was about them forking our Stripe extension to replace the attribution from us to them for WooCommerce sites hosted on WP Engine. Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 2y ago
I think you missed the point. They (i know it's you but easier to not personalize it here) do not own all the rights to the software themselves. For the parts they do not own, they have no rights other than what they got through GPLv2. Those rights are conditioned upon them not trying to sublicense/etc the software in a way that conflicts with GPLv2. Which this term sheet purports to do.
- photomatt 2y ago
  The agreement wasn't about their license to the code, it was about their license to the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. They could agree to not do things allowed under the GPL, like replacing our Stripe attribution, it's their right to. Or not.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    "The agreement wasn't about their license to the code," Maybe you misread it (or miswrote it i guess)? it says: "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying any of Automattic’s, WooCommerce’s, or its affiliates' software (including, but not limited to plugins and extensions) ..." It could not more plainly say that they cannot fork or modify software.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jasonlotito 2y ago
      "The agreement wasn't about their license to the [GPL] code," And "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying [non GPL code]" You are misreading it.
      - greyface- 2y ago
        > License: GPLv3 https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gateway-stripe/trunk/readme.txt https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gatew...
        the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
        How can a plugin be GPLv3 when the core is GPLv2? //edit: apparently the core is v2 or later.
        2y ago
numbsafari 2y ago
[flagged]
FireBeyond 2y ago
> Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy. Stripe thinks that an affiliate using their affiliate link is spammy, but that you, another affiliate, publishing yours with WordPress is not? Also, I'm sure you think they entirely agree with you, but maybe consider they may not (don't) want you to speak for them while you're being sued...

DannyBee 2y ago

A few things: First, something general - one thing to keep in mind is that open source folks think of these things as license violations/etc, but that's not actually a thing, legally. Breach of contract and copyright infringement are. That is how a claim would be analyzed. Not as a "GPL violation". Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. This is fairly relevant because: 1. The general view on GPLv2 is that you gain a shiny new license every time you receive a new copy from someone else. In other words, you have signed a new contract. So while your rights may have been terminated the existing contracted copy (and you would be liable for distributing or ... that one), if you just get a new copy from someone else, congrats, new contract. This is supported by the license: "6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." Let's assume this was not true 2. Wordpress is actually GPLv2 or later. GPLv3 has a notice and cure period. Under GPLv3, they would still be within the cure period (unless i screwed up the timeframe :P), and would have not lost a license yet. 3. GPLV3 has a more complex termination mechanism to try to deal with notice, cure, and the issue in #1. In short, worst case, if they are claiming to use it as licensed by GPLv2, it would be fairly easy to cure the ability to distribute new copies. They could do nothing about violations that exist in existing copies (and would not be allowed to continue distributing those). I realize how insane this sounds, since it's basically saying "These bits over here are red but these same exact bits over here are green", but that's life in the legal realm sometimes. For sure, if they do nothing, explicitly, they would be in bad shape, legally, in the worst case. GPLv3 is a more complex question. Also: there are those that strongly disagree with the view in #1 and believe you lose all rights forever unless they are reinstated. Rather than try to say who is right or wrong, i tried to give you where general consensus seems to lie. That is not something you should take to court, it's closer to "if you surveyed 100 open source lawyers what would most think"

EMIRELADERO 2y ago
> Why is this relevant? Well, you really have to think of this stuff as contracts to use a given copy of software, and not as some abstract thing licensed or not. If you think about it in that way, copyright infringement is out of the picture completely because of the statutory exception. 17 U.S.C § 117 - Limitations on exclusive rights: Computer programs (a)Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided: (1)that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or (2)that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

immibis 2y ago

Obviously not. Everyone who contributed to WordPress now has the right to sue Automattic for 100% of its profits.