9 ms·

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

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.
        DannyBee 2y ago
        Correct, it's gplv2 or later. v2/v3 GPL compatibility is also sort of an abstract thing - it gets talked about a lot (IE do the terms have to actually conflict as applied to a given situation or only conflict in theory) , but you also can't file a lawsuit with a claim of "GPL incompatibility". You'd have to file a claim for breach of contract or infringement (or both). This matters because if, for example, your main incompatibility is around the patent pieces (that's one of them), and there are no patents anywhere involved, you may have a hard time convincing a judge that there is really a breach of contract.
        throwlicense 2y ago
        I do not believe it is legally "GPL v2 or later" at all. The original b2 license was GPL v2. There was no or later version option in the original b2 license. Given that WordPress is a derivative work, it has to keep the same or compatible license. Which "GPL v2 or later" is not. Note how the original license is GPL v2 at [0], then the "or later" header is added much later at [1] seemingly out of nowhere. [0] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cbd39b36173b0097d1fb77b98db/license.txt https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cb... [1] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a424e26b6cb08516905d77c944b https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a...
    - DannyBee 2y ago
      1. Matt just claimed it wasn't about software at all. So we've now moved on to saying "well it's about code, but not GPL code". Progress, i guess? 2. The agreement does not limit it to non-GPL code in any way, so i'm really not sure where you are getting that from. The plain terms cover all of automattic (et al) software, which includes the stuff that has GPL code in it. The normal way such an agreement would be written to cover only non-GPL pieces would be to say it does not attempt to modify or change rights you get elsewhere, blah blah blah. It includes no such clause. If you've got meaningful parol evidence that it was meant to cover only non-GPL code, great, let's see it. (since the agreement is both badly written and not fully integrated, it would be valid to do so).
  - Terretta 2y ago
    > fork or modify software He mentioned "trademarks". This phrase is messy: "forking WooCommerce". There's a likely fracture between the two words. One might have a right to fork source, while one might not have a right to mark and trade what was changed under the same trademark. Similarly, a source license might require prominently disclosing changes made to source, such as redirecting an affiliate support stream from a trademark owner's account to one's own account, while it might be trademarks that decide whether one can still call this permissibly edited thing the same name or let users think it's the same thing. To be clear, I have no idea what rights or agreements are at play in this particular situation, just noting these are not the same rights.
  - kemayo 2y ago
    I think what Matt's saying is that they absolutely had the GPL rights to fork and modify the code... but those rights don't include the right to use the trademark. So if they wanted to be able to market themselves as offering WooCommerce(TM), they had to agree to the license, in which they'd have to promise not to use the aforementioned GPL rights. I am nowhere near knowing enough about trademark law to say whether this is anything even approaching a reasonable use of trademarks.
    - mort96 2y ago
      But that's not what the legal document says? "Cease and desist from using the trademark" is a different sentence from "cease and decist from forking and modifying code"
      - kemayo 2y ago
        I'm not defending his position, or talking about whatever's in the legal documents, I'm just trying to explain the distinction Matt seems to be drawing between the trademark license (and attached terms) and the software license in this thread. (Personally, I think it's a fairly bullshit distinction that's completely against the spirit of the GPL. It's probably legally allowed, though.)
        mort96 2y ago
        I don't understand how that's supposed to work. You can't use a trademark to prevent anyone from forking a piece of software whose license allows forking. You can say that other people can't use your trademark in forks, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on here? "Cease and decist from forking or modifying the software" is, again, a different sentence from "cease and decist from using our trademark in your modified versions of the software"
        kemayo 2y ago
        My understanding of Matt's position, and what that term sheet he posted is talking about, is that he feels that WP Engine needs a trademark license to cover what it's currently doing. He feels that their usage of the marks exceeds what's generally allowed under the "everyone can use it this way" terms that WordPress.org offers. His position isn't just that they can't use the trademark to apply to their forked version, it's that they can't use it as they currently are even if it wasn't forked. So Matt's now offering these terms: a license to use the trademarks as they currently are, in exchange for concessions. The concessions include that they'd agree to not use their GPL-granted right to fork the code. This sounds like an agreement that would hold up, assuming he's right about the trademark policy. Again, I have no idea about the actual legalities of trademark usage. It's entirely possible that Matt is wrong about them not being allowed to do what they're currently doing with the trademarks, but it sounds like lawyers will be arguing about that.
- duskwuff 2y ago
  Let's be clear about who did what here. WP Engine didn't agree to anything. You demanded that they not do these things.

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.
      - DannyBee 2y ago
        Correct, it's gplv2 or later. v2/v3 GPL compatibility is also sort of an abstract thing - it gets talked about a lot (IE do the terms have to actually conflict as applied to a given situation or only conflict in theory) , but you also can't file a lawsuit with a claim of "GPL incompatibility". You'd have to file a claim for breach of contract or infringement (or both). This matters because if, for example, your main incompatibility is around the patent pieces (that's one of them), and there are no patents anywhere involved, you may have a hard time convincing a judge that there is really a breach of contract.
        throwlicense 2y ago
        I do not believe it is legally "GPL v2 or later" at all. The original b2 license was GPL v2. There was no or later version option in the original b2 license. Given that WordPress is a derivative work, it has to keep the same or compatible license. Which "GPL v2 or later" is not. Note how the original license is GPL v2 at [0], then the "or later" header is added much later at [1] seemingly out of nowhere. [0] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cbd39b36173b0097d1fb77b98db/license.txt https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cb... [1] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a424e26b6cb08516905d77c944b https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a...
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    1. Matt just claimed it wasn't about software at all. So we've now moved on to saying "well it's about code, but not GPL code". Progress, i guess? 2. The agreement does not limit it to non-GPL code in any way, so i'm really not sure where you are getting that from. The plain terms cover all of automattic (et al) software, which includes the stuff that has GPL code in it. The normal way such an agreement would be written to cover only non-GPL pieces would be to say it does not attempt to modify or change rights you get elsewhere, blah blah blah. It includes no such clause. If you've got meaningful parol evidence that it was meant to cover only non-GPL code, great, let's see it. (since the agreement is both badly written and not fully integrated, it would be valid to do so).
- Terretta 2y ago
  > fork or modify software He mentioned "trademarks". This phrase is messy: "forking WooCommerce". There's a likely fracture between the two words. One might have a right to fork source, while one might not have a right to mark and trade what was changed under the same trademark. Similarly, a source license might require prominently disclosing changes made to source, such as redirecting an affiliate support stream from a trademark owner's account to one's own account, while it might be trademarks that decide whether one can still call this permissibly edited thing the same name or let users think it's the same thing. To be clear, I have no idea what rights or agreements are at play in this particular situation, just noting these are not the same rights.
- kemayo 2y ago
  I think what Matt's saying is that they absolutely had the GPL rights to fork and modify the code... but those rights don't include the right to use the trademark. So if they wanted to be able to market themselves as offering WooCommerce(TM), they had to agree to the license, in which they'd have to promise not to use the aforementioned GPL rights. I am nowhere near knowing enough about trademark law to say whether this is anything even approaching a reasonable use of trademarks.
  - mort96 2y ago
    But that's not what the legal document says? "Cease and desist from using the trademark" is a different sentence from "cease and decist from forking and modifying code"
    - kemayo 2y ago
      I'm not defending his position, or talking about whatever's in the legal documents, I'm just trying to explain the distinction Matt seems to be drawing between the trademark license (and attached terms) and the software license in this thread. (Personally, I think it's a fairly bullshit distinction that's completely against the spirit of the GPL. It's probably legally allowed, though.)
      - mort96 2y ago
        I don't understand how that's supposed to work. You can't use a trademark to prevent anyone from forking a piece of software whose license allows forking. You can say that other people can't use your trademark in forks, but that doesn't seem to be what's going on here? "Cease and decist from forking or modifying the software" is, again, a different sentence from "cease and decist from using our trademark in your modified versions of the software"
        kemayo 2y ago
        My understanding of Matt's position, and what that term sheet he posted is talking about, is that he feels that WP Engine needs a trademark license to cover what it's currently doing. He feels that their usage of the marks exceeds what's generally allowed under the "everyone can use it this way" terms that WordPress.org offers. His position isn't just that they can't use the trademark to apply to their forked version, it's that they can't use it as they currently are even if it wasn't forked. So Matt's now offering these terms: a license to use the trademarks as they currently are, in exchange for concessions. The concessions include that they'd agree to not use their GPL-granted right to fork the code. This sounds like an agreement that would hold up, assuming he's right about the trademark policy. Again, I have no idea about the actual legalities of trademark usage. It's entirely possible that Matt is wrong about them not being allowed to do what they're currently doing with the trademarks, but it sounds like lawyers will be arguing about that.
duskwuff 2y ago
Let's be clear about who did what here. WP Engine didn't agree to anything. You demanded that they not do these things.