6 ms·

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/
- neilperetz 2y ago
  I appreciate the question and it deserves a lengthier blog post reply that I will work on and share. In the interim, some brief thoughts on the topic that may be relevant. The WordPress community operates on an open source, non-commercial basis. The community decides what is included in each release of WordPress, how it's tested, what documentation accompanies it, etc. Because the WordPress Foundation, not Automattic, owns the WordPress trademarks for non-commercial use, Automattic has no control or veto of what code is stamped with the WordPress label. By contrast, if Automattic retained non-commercial control over the WordPress trademarks it could refuse to affix the WordPress label to work done by and released by core contributor groups. In case you are not familiar with how WordPress decisionmaking works: Volunteer contributors self-organize into groups that set their own goals, interface with other groups, allocate resources, plan a schedule, and resolve issues according to a Community Code of Conduct (see https://make.wordpress.org/handbook/community-code-of-conduct/ https://make.wordpress.org/handbook/community-code-of-conduc...). You can learn about how decisions are made in the WordPress project at https://learn.wordpress.org/course/how-decisions-are-made-in-the-wordpress-project/ https://learn.wordpress.org/course/how-decisions-are-made-in.... I am going to operate under the assumption that others may have similar questions, which is why I think this is a good topic for a blog post.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - mthoms 2y ago
    Neil, thanks for your response. But (as you noted) there is still lots of confusion. >Because the WordPress Foundation, not Automattic, owns the WordPress trademarks for non-commercial use, Automattic has no control or veto of what code is stamped with the WordPress label. Respectfully, how the "code is stamped" wasn't the question, and nobody was worried about that. What people were worried about around the time of Matt's post (previously linked) was corporate control over the marks. That is the context under which Matt made the claim. Given that context, would you describe the trademarks as being "fully independent from any company"? If I may pick your brain some more; Where does this distinction between commercial and non-commercial use come from? The trademark assignment does not appear to make any such distinction: "..an exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable right and license to use and otherwise exploit the trademarks...". https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233-0808.pdf https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233... Which brings up something else I hope you can clarify: how can The Foundation grant wordpress.org a license if the licence granted to Automattic is exclusive? Wordpress.org as you know, is not a non-profit. Thanks.

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/

neilperetz 2y ago
I appreciate the question and it deserves a lengthier blog post reply that I will work on and share. In the interim, some brief thoughts on the topic that may be relevant. The WordPress community operates on an open source, non-commercial basis. The community decides what is included in each release of WordPress, how it's tested, what documentation accompanies it, etc. Because the WordPress Foundation, not Automattic, owns the WordPress trademarks for non-commercial use, Automattic has no control or veto of what code is stamped with the WordPress label. By contrast, if Automattic retained non-commercial control over the WordPress trademarks it could refuse to affix the WordPress label to work done by and released by core contributor groups. In case you are not familiar with how WordPress decisionmaking works: Volunteer contributors self-organize into groups that set their own goals, interface with other groups, allocate resources, plan a schedule, and resolve issues according to a Community Code of Conduct (see https://make.wordpress.org/handbook/community-code-of-conduct/ https://make.wordpress.org/handbook/community-code-of-conduc...). You can learn about how decisions are made in the WordPress project at https://learn.wordpress.org/course/how-decisions-are-made-in-the-wordpress-project/ https://learn.wordpress.org/course/how-decisions-are-made-in.... I am going to operate under the assumption that others may have similar questions, which is why I think this is a good topic for a blog post.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mthoms 2y ago
  Neil, thanks for your response. But (as you noted) there is still lots of confusion. >Because the WordPress Foundation, not Automattic, owns the WordPress trademarks for non-commercial use, Automattic has no control or veto of what code is stamped with the WordPress label. Respectfully, how the "code is stamped" wasn't the question, and nobody was worried about that. What people were worried about around the time of Matt's post (previously linked) was corporate control over the marks. That is the context under which Matt made the claim. Given that context, would you describe the trademarks as being "fully independent from any company"? If I may pick your brain some more; Where does this distinction between commercial and non-commercial use come from? The trademark assignment does not appear to make any such distinction: "..an exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable right and license to use and otherwise exploit the trademarks...". https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233-0808.pdf https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233... Which brings up something else I hope you can clarify: how can The Foundation grant wordpress.org a license if the licence granted to Automattic is exclusive? Wordpress.org as you know, is not a non-profit. Thanks.