mthoms

11 ms·

121.
by mthoms 2y ago
I generally agree except for "the court of public opinion" part. It seems abundantly clear to me that Matt has damaged his name beyond repair. As I see it, the only way for WordPress to survive is if Matt steps down from the boa
122.
by mthoms 2y ago
That's when they were bought by private equity. So there was a big fuss about that.
123.
by mthoms 2y ago
I have sites on WPE and I've worked for a major WP plugin developer. I've been in and out of the community since 2010. I know the players pretty well. Matt has sabotaged any chance of a good result for him and Automattic no matter
124.
by mthoms 2y ago
Now that's a bit of trivia I did not know.
125.
by mthoms 2y ago
I think naming his company AutoMATTic really says it all.
126.
by mthoms 2y ago
Or... hear me out... Matt has the legal acumen of a pissed-off pre-teen and he thought this was clever. Occam's Razor and all that.
127.
by mthoms 2y ago
Does it support nesting?
128.
by mthoms 2y ago
"WPEngine should have foreseen something that has never happened in the 20 years of the software's history". I mean yeah, companies should have contingency plans for things that are extraordinarily rare but let's be reas
129.
by mthoms 2y ago
Don't celebrate yet. It looks more like he's just trying to help Matt out rather than support the community - https://imgur.com/a/6isRMCv Fun fact: WPEngine is a Cloudflare customer. Automattic is not.
130.
by mthoms 2y ago
>8% is typical for a franchise fee Matt you literally got that figure from a random person on Twitter early today . Remember? You re-tweeted it. https://x.com/sandro_groganz/status/1841437394236489874 https:&
131.
by mthoms 2y ago
The source for that figure is literally "random person on twitter". I'm not even joking. Matt reposted it earlier today. https://x.com/sandro_groganz/status/1841437394236489874
132.
by mthoms 2y ago
I understand the workings of the trademark. The question I asked of you (that you avoided) is why did you claim that the trademark was "fully independent from any company" and that Automattic had "give[n] up control". [0
133.
by mthoms 2y ago
Why did you tell the community: "the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company" ? That's objectively untrue. Period. That was 14 years ago Matt. You mislead the community
134.
by mthoms 2y ago
Fun fact. Matt Mullenweg himself was a seed investor in WPEngine. He has either sold since then, or his share has been diluted to the point of being meaningless. The reality is that he had no problem with WPEngine until recently. Just last
135.
by mthoms 2y ago
True. I think it's the middle to high end (but not enterprise) part of the market that WPEngine are dominating at the expense of Automattic.
136.
by mthoms 2y ago
Not actively. This was literally three years later.
137.
by mthoms 2y ago
He recently claimed that his lawyers are encouraging him to carry on like this. It's mind boggling.
138.
by mthoms 2y ago
It's complicated. The trademark is indeed owned by The Foundation but they have granted Automattic an "exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable right and license to use and otherwise ex
139.
by mthoms 2y ago
Look... Pearson could be the Black River Killer, and that still wouldn't make Matt's actions morally justified. (For clarity, I'm specifically talking about buying the thesis.com domain name, which he couldn't use becaus
140.
by mthoms 2y ago
Sure. I wasn't disagreeing or correcting you, I was just providing background information. That background information provides some important nuance. It also provides another example of Matt exploding with a personal vendetta (IMO). W
141.
by mthoms 2y ago
There's a lot of back-story here but the tl;dr is that someone did some really shady stuff with GPL themes and was a jerk to Matt and the community. Full stop. He admits as much. The other side is that... years later, Matt spent $100,0
142.
by mthoms 2y ago
For the last time. The defence argued by WPE's lawyers in one of Nominative. Fair. Use. If your source doesn't address Nominative. Fair. Use. then it isn't a relevant counterpoint. Jesus, it's not complicated. Only one o
143.
by mthoms 2y ago
I'm not sure what specific point you're making here. The question at hand is how you *know* that the WPEngine usage is trademark infringement under the law. Nothing you've provided anywhere, at any time, supports that claim.
144.
by mthoms 2y ago
Incorrect. Dot org is not involved. https://x.com/wpengine/status/1839246341660119287
145.
by mthoms 2y ago
No-one is being sued (yet) and wordpress.org was not targeted in any way. Matt is being dishonest by repeating this lie anywhere and everywhere. Including on the very page you linked. WPEngine sent a cease and desist letter addressed to,
146.
by mthoms 2y ago
That's just it. WPEngine are not being asked to pay WordPress.org. They are being asked to pay Automattic.
147.
by mthoms 2y ago
Disagree. One of the criteria seems to be whether there is a reasonable substitute phrase or word to describe the product. I think we agree that there is no other word to describe the open-source package known as WordPress without using &qu
148.
by mthoms 2y ago
I think we agree on this. I'm just trying to understand why you threw out the bizarre Disney/Outlook analogy. Neither of those are open source: I don't have a right to sell those for many, many legal reasons so your analogy
149.
by mthoms 2y ago
That's the problem though. It's a chicken and egg issue. Those donated hours could be directed towards things that aren't in WPEngines interest. To use an analogy: it's taxation without representation. That seems counter
150.
by mthoms 2y ago
Do I need to spell it out? The foundation is headed by the same person who they granted an exclusive license to. Not just a commercial license to use the trademarks. It's permission to sub-license the trademarks for profit without

More ›