4 ms·
Pathetic. Matt banned one of the most popular WordPress plugins. Then, he forked the code and hosted it on WP.org, which is against the Terms of Service. He als
by mirzap 2y ago
Pathetic. Matt banned one of the most popular WordPress plugins. Then, he forked the code and hosted it on WP.org, which is against the Terms of Service. He also hosted it in the plugin directory on the same path as ACF, stealing its SEO traffic. Wow!
Matt's state of mind is clearly not good. If I were an investor in WordPress, I would start thinking about cutting my losses. WordPress will not recover from this self-inflicted destruction
*Update*
Oh, it's worse than that. He just renamed the ACF to SCF and claimed all the installations and reviews from ACF. I still can't believe this happened. This can't be legal!
- photomatt 2y agoHave you read the GPL?
- DonnieBurger 2y agoParent does not mention GPL, nor is this a GPL issue. It's about the takeover of an existing plugin and it's reviews/installs.
- ankleturtle 2y agoI am not a lawyer, but I am really curious if this would amount to tortious interference.
- Sebguer 2y agoEventually you are going to have to confront that the distance between 'technical correctness' and 'moral correctness' is vaster than you apparently think it is.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- curiousgal 2y ago[flagged]
- kristofferR 2y agoWhat kind of response is that? Does that mean you approve of sites like GPLDL then?
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- rpgbr 2y agoThe problem isn’t GPL or code, it’s a trademark and trusting issue.
- chx 2y agoHave you read https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/advanced-custom-98321164.html https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/advanced-custom-9832116... and https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/acf-98321135.html https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/acf-98321135.html ?
- s1ds 2y agoHave you read them? Both are in pending status and not registered. "Advanced Custom Fields" most recent update before a last minute extension to respond to final notice was for: "Merely Descriptive Refusal - Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the function of applicant’s goods and/or services." So far even USPTO attorneys think it's a generic mark not worthy of being registered: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn98321164&docId=NFIN20240719151315&linkId=2#docIndex=1&page=1 https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn98321164&docI...