4 ms·
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
by 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 agoTrademarks 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 agoI 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.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y agoIf it is the same thing, then the phrasing you responded to is correct, which explains why the offer is not allowed under the GPL. If any offer is made by 1 party which includes the other party giving up their GPL right to fork, that offer constitutes an attempt under the GPL to redistribute GPL code under reduced rights, which is a violation of the GPL, with the punishment being a revocation of the offerer's rights. Yes, the offeree could choose not to accept the offer, but that does not matter: the mere offering of the offer constitutes an attempt, and thus a violation of section 4.
- kemayo 2y agoI don't think we're going to agree on this one.
- ImPostingOnHN 2y ago