4 ms·

Hi Legitster. I will work with colleagues on a response to your question. It's a broad topic given how many facets there are to the WordPress community.

jonnypants83 2y ago
come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?
- nchmy 2y ago
  Given how poorly written that article is (and how he has no control of his client), its not clear that Neil is actually a real lawyer
  - neilperetz 2y ago
    Despite our sometimes fervent wishes, lawyers don't control clients. We are not puppeteers.
    - NeonNautilus 2y ago
      Matt has also claimed that you or someone else on his legal team has signed off on his posting. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726834 Is that true or false?
    - nchmy 2y ago
      So what you're saying is that you "fervently" think your boss should shut up because he is giving his legal opponent fuel for their case against his extortion and other charges? And that he's making you write things that you don't understand or particularly agree with? I promise you, your integrity (or at least your license to practice law) are worth more than Matt's sinking ship. I hope you can move on to do something meaningful with you practice
      - neilperetz 2y ago
        No, that's not what I am saying. Nice try with the leading question though.
      - Ballantara 2y ago
        he's never going to move on to anything meaningful, he's fully cooked
    - wasteduniverse 2y ago
      [dead]
    - deirdresm 2y ago
      If lawyers only had perfect clients, they wouldn’t have clients. (Analogously, If software engineers only worked for perfect companies, companies wouldn’t have software engineers.)
- neilperetz 2y ago
  Clearly your question is beyond the scope of the article -which means you want more than 700 words. Otherwise you could just read the article.
  - NeonNautilus 2y ago
    Did Matt really send you here without even explaining what the conversation was about? And then you didn't even bother to read it for yourself? The article you wrote claims "The Foundation also licensed the name WordPress to the non-profit WordPress.org, which runs a website that facilitates access to WordPress-related software." Matt in his comment claims "All the information in the links you shared is totally wrong. Our lawyers have never said that WordPress.org is a non-profit or owned by the Foundation." So which of you have it wrong?
    - neilperetz 2y ago
      I believe there was a typo in the post. If you read this thread you'll see a note below from Matt yesterday that the post was corrected.
      - FireBeyond 2y ago
        "Asbolutely" is a typo. Don't white wash a completely inaccurate and misleading statement as a typing error - that treats people like fools. ESPECIALLY since this is one of DOZENS of recently citable instances where Matt refers to WP.org, Automattic, and the Foundation almost interchangably. "Rushing to fix years of (intentionally/conveniently) muddy waters on org structures" is not "a typo in the past" - this is insulting to your audience.
  - mthoms 2y ago
    Neil, Thanks for participating. I have an honest question: How do you reconcile your post [0] claiming that Automattic controls all commercial aspects of the trademark with Matt's previous claim that "the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company" and that Automattic had "give[n] up control" of the marks? [1] [0] https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-legal-perspective/ https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg... [1] https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/ https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/
DonnieBurger 2y ago
I'll take that as a "no." unless proven otherwise.
- deffnotabot 2y ago
  [dead]
- neilperetz 2y ago
  While I love pronouns, they can lead to misunderstandings if not carefully defined. Above it was written "I'll take that as a 'no'". Could you explain what "that" refers to in your statement. I am asking because, lacking a clear definition of the question, I cannot say whether the answer is Yes, No, or something else.
  - ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
    "that" was referring to your reply to their straightforward yes/no question being anything but.
    - neilperetz 2y ago
      So you interpret "is there any part of the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt?" as being a YES or NO question? I interpret it as a request for information about what is Matt's role in the ecosystem and I was gathering information to share about that. However, if you are not interested in factual information, the answer is: YES, there are various parts of the the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt.
      - slenk 2y ago
        Which ones aren't under his control? HR? Legal? Because no sane person would be letting him do this
      - pwillia7 2y ago
        While I love the use of passive aggressive language, in this case, as it was originally written, "However, if you are not interested in factual information, the answer is: YES" causes some globule of confusion to the primary reader -- Is this to imply that the answer Yes to the question about Matt's control over the organizations named WordPress is _not_ in fact factual? Dictated not read. YMHAOS

jonnypants83 2y ago

come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?

nchmy 2y ago
Given how poorly written that article is (and how he has no control of his client), its not clear that Neil is actually a real lawyer
- neilperetz 2y ago
  Despite our sometimes fervent wishes, lawyers don't control clients. We are not puppeteers.
  - NeonNautilus 2y ago
    Matt has also claimed that you or someone else on his legal team has signed off on his posting. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726834 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726834 Is that true or false?
  - nchmy 2y ago
    So what you're saying is that you "fervently" think your boss should shut up because he is giving his legal opponent fuel for their case against his extortion and other charges? And that he's making you write things that you don't understand or particularly agree with? I promise you, your integrity (or at least your license to practice law) are worth more than Matt's sinking ship. I hope you can move on to do something meaningful with you practice
    - neilperetz 2y ago
      No, that's not what I am saying. Nice try with the leading question though.
    - Ballantara 2y ago
      he's never going to move on to anything meaningful, he's fully cooked
  - wasteduniverse 2y ago
    [dead]
  - deirdresm 2y ago
    If lawyers only had perfect clients, they wouldn’t have clients. (Analogously, If software engineers only worked for perfect companies, companies wouldn’t have software engineers.)
neilperetz 2y ago
Clearly your question is beyond the scope of the article -which means you want more than 700 words. Otherwise you could just read the article.
- NeonNautilus 2y ago
  Did Matt really send you here without even explaining what the conversation was about? And then you didn't even bother to read it for yourself? The article you wrote claims "The Foundation also licensed the name WordPress to the non-profit WordPress.org, which runs a website that facilitates access to WordPress-related software." Matt in his comment claims "All the information in the links you shared is totally wrong. Our lawyers have never said that WordPress.org is a non-profit or owned by the Foundation." So which of you have it wrong?
  - neilperetz 2y ago
    I believe there was a typo in the post. If you read this thread you'll see a note below from Matt yesterday that the post was corrected.
    - FireBeyond 2y ago
      "Asbolutely" is a typo. Don't white wash a completely inaccurate and misleading statement as a typing error - that treats people like fools. ESPECIALLY since this is one of DOZENS of recently citable instances where Matt refers to WP.org, Automattic, and the Foundation almost interchangably. "Rushing to fix years of (intentionally/conveniently) muddy waters on org structures" is not "a typo in the past" - this is insulting to your audience.
- mthoms 2y ago
  Neil, Thanks for participating. I have an honest question: How do you reconcile your post [0] claiming that Automattic controls all commercial aspects of the trademark with Matt's previous claim that "the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company" and that Automattic had "give[n] up control" of the marks? [1] [0] https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-legal-perspective/ https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg... [1] https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/ https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/

DonnieBurger 2y ago

I'll take that as a "no." unless proven otherwise.

deffnotabot 2y ago
[dead]
neilperetz 2y ago
While I love pronouns, they can lead to misunderstandings if not carefully defined. Above it was written "I'll take that as a 'no'". Could you explain what "that" refers to in your statement. I am asking because, lacking a clear definition of the question, I cannot say whether the answer is Yes, No, or something else.
- ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
  "that" was referring to your reply to their straightforward yes/no question being anything but.
  - neilperetz 2y ago
    So you interpret "is there any part of the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt?" as being a YES or NO question? I interpret it as a request for information about what is Matt's role in the ecosystem and I was gathering information to share about that. However, if you are not interested in factual information, the answer is: YES, there are various parts of the the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt.
    - slenk 2y ago
      Which ones aren't under his control? HR? Legal? Because no sane person would be letting him do this
    - pwillia7 2y ago
      While I love the use of passive aggressive language, in this case, as it was originally written, "However, if you are not interested in factual information, the answer is: YES" causes some globule of confusion to the primary reader -- Is this to imply that the answer Yes to the question about Matt's control over the organizations named WordPress is _not_ in fact factual? Dictated not read. YMHAOS