3 ms·

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 wha

by 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.

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
> The concessions include that they'd agree to not use their GPL-granted right to fork the code. The point is that including this stipulation (attempting to limit the GPL-granted right-to-fork) appears to be itself against the GPL, and voids Automattic's previously-granted GPL rights. In other words, if you even attempt to get someone to sign away their GPL granted rights, you lose your own GPL granted rights.
- kemayo 2y ago
  WordPress is GPLv2-or-later. GPLv2 is silent on the subject of trademarks, and is a bit vague about additional restrictions -- section 4 would apply to trying to restrict usage of the code, but trademarks are a separate thing. GPLv3 explicitly allows you to decline to license your trademarks (see section 7, the paragraph starting "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License", clause e). This isn't generally called out as one of the big differences between v2 and v3, so I think it's intended more as a legally-spelled-out clarification than a change. I'm not a lawyer, but the GPLv3 in particular seems compatible with the idea that you can tell someone that they can only use your trademarks so long as they behave in a certain way... so long as you're still allowed to fork the code, strip out those trademarks, and continue using it. Which does seem to be Matt's position. (I mean, he also wants to restrict access to Wordpress.org services, but that's even less in the GPL's area.)
  - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
    Trademarks are a red herring here. What the GPL says is that if Automattic attempts to get someone to give up their GPL rights (e.g. the right to fork), then Automattic automatically loses their own GPL rights as punishment for the attempt. This is the section 4 you speak of. Specifically, Automattic cannot offer terms that say "in exchange for trademark stuff (or anything else), you agree to give up your GPL rights to forking". The term sheet seems to show Automattic did precisely that (violated section 4 of the GPL license by trying to get someone to give up their GPL right to fork), ergo Automattic should lose their own GPL rights, including to parts of Wordpress. Trademarks don't factor in here.
    - kemayo 2y ago
      I really don't think that's the way to interpret it. Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The GPL says that's allowed -- you're not required to grant a trademark license.
      - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
        > Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Such an attempt to get someone to forfeit their GPL right-to-fork (even for consideration) is forbidden by the GPL license granted to Automattic, and the punishment for violating that GPL license in such a way, is that Automattic forfeits their own license. Automattic is not allowed to propose a contract which limits someone's GPL right-to-fork. They did so anyways, and thus should lose their own license.
        kemayo 2y ago
        > The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Those mean the same thing. It's implicit in the offer existing that you can choose not take the offer, and so don't get the stuff in it.

by kemayo 2y ago

ImPostingOnHN 2y ago

> The concessions include that they'd agree to not use their GPL-granted right to fork the code. The point is that including this stipulation (attempting to limit the GPL-granted right-to-fork) appears to be itself against the GPL, and voids Automattic's previously-granted GPL rights. In other words, if you even attempt to get someone to sign away their GPL granted rights, you lose your own GPL granted rights.

kemayo 2y ago
WordPress is GPLv2-or-later. GPLv2 is silent on the subject of trademarks, and is a bit vague about additional restrictions -- section 4 would apply to trying to restrict usage of the code, but trademarks are a separate thing. GPLv3 explicitly allows you to decline to license your trademarks (see section 7, the paragraph starting "Notwithstanding any other provision of this License", clause e). This isn't generally called out as one of the big differences between v2 and v3, so I think it's intended more as a legally-spelled-out clarification than a change. I'm not a lawyer, but the GPLv3 in particular seems compatible with the idea that you can tell someone that they can only use your trademarks so long as they behave in a certain way... so long as you're still allowed to fork the code, strip out those trademarks, and continue using it. Which does seem to be Matt's position. (I mean, he also wants to restrict access to Wordpress.org services, but that's even less in the GPL's area.)
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
  Trademarks are a red herring here. What the GPL says is that if Automattic attempts to get someone to give up their GPL rights (e.g. the right to fork), then Automattic automatically loses their own GPL rights as punishment for the attempt. This is the section 4 you speak of. Specifically, Automattic cannot offer terms that say "in exchange for trademark stuff (or anything else), you agree to give up your GPL rights to forking". The term sheet seems to show Automattic did precisely that (violated section 4 of the GPL license by trying to get someone to give up their GPL right to fork), ergo Automattic should lose their own GPL rights, including to parts of Wordpress. Trademarks don't factor in here.
  - kemayo 2y ago
    I really don't think that's the way to interpret it. Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The GPL says that's allowed -- you're not required to grant a trademark license.
    - ImPostingOnHN 2y ago
      > Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Such an attempt to get someone to forfeit their GPL right-to-fork (even for consideration) is forbidden by the GPL license granted to Automattic, and the punishment for violating that GPL license in such a way, is that Automattic forfeits their own license. Automattic is not allowed to propose a contract which limits someone's GPL right-to-fork. They did so anyways, and thus should lose their own license.
      - kemayo 2y ago
        > The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Those mean the same thing. It's implicit in the offer existing that you can choose not take the offer, and so don't get the stuff in it.