Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

wpengine.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 717 posts

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#41

Post by DannyBee »

olliej wrote: post #15

Um this seems pretty horrendous (from a moral PoV, no idea about legal), at the time Mullenweg apparently said > Automattic has transferred the WordPress trademark to the WordPress > Foundation, the nonprofit dedicated to promoting and ensuring access to WordPress and related > open source projects in perpetuity. This means that the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, > its name, is now fully independent from…

It supports their various unfair competition/etc claims, but mostly seems written for the IRS/press/etc.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#42

Post by dangrossman »

There's a "no forking" clause in the term sheet Automattic sent to WP Engine:

https://automattic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/term-sheet...

IANAL, but the WordPress license (GPLv2) says that if you attempt to sublicense the software or otherwise distribute it under different terms, you forfeit your own license to it:

    "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance."
WordPress is itself a fork, with no copyright assignments, so Matt has no ability to change the license.

Given this, is it legal for WordPress.com to continue using and distributing the WordPress software as we speak?

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#43

Post by marpstar »

FireBeyond wrote: post #34
sys13 wrote: post #10

What's sad here is that this dispute isn't likely to make Wordpress any better, but rather send money to lawyers and reduce enthusiasm for the OSS project.

And what is more sad is that it really appears that the WordPress figurehead is to blame. Matt has made so many unforced errors in the last month, in addition to revealing, one way or another, that he basically considers WordPress, the .org, the .com, the Foundation, and Automattic, all to be synonymous, which is news to a significant portion of the community, let alone to the incorporation and other founding filings…

He's completely unhinged. The threats that he made that are outlined in this document... how is this NOT extortion? Any lawyers around?

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#44

Post by unsnap_biceps »

dangrossman wrote: post #42

There's a "no forking" clause in the term sheet Automattic sent to WP Engine: https://automattic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/term-sheet... IANAL, but the WordPress license (GPLv2) says that if you attempt to sublicense the software or otherwise distribute it under different terms, you forfeit your own license to it: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided un…

This is an excellent question! From my armchair, it would appear a valid reading, but IANAL and all.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#45

Post by 3np »

chiefalchemist wrote: post #19
talldayo wrote: post #6

It's hard to even imagine what a best-case scenario looks like for Matt at this point. Putting aside the matter of righteousness, his business is pretty much chalked for professional applications at this point. B2B partnerships are done - anyone with lawyers on-staff are going to get shoulder-tapped and asked to find another hosting solution. Smaller customers have all the more reason to bleed out to competitors, and…

If it's any three things, it's about money, money, and money. Zooming out a bit, Automattic acquired Tumblr and like all those before it seems to be choking on it. Competitors like Wix, Squarespace, WebFlow and Shopify are all nipping at WordPress' marketshare. I don't know what WordPress.com's stats look like, but blogging is out of sytle. New cool kids want the new black. That is to be social media influencers. Alo…

> People are fatigued

I think this is significant. As I caught up on this conversation I've seen it interwoven with saltiness about "The Block Editor", which I understand is a new WYSIWYG editor replacing the classic editor under deprecation and which an increasing part of the community have been feeling alienated and forced by. It's been Matt's baby and WP hasn't been taking the community feedback to heart.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#46

Post by [deleted] »

pier25 wrote: post #35
chiefalchemist wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's any three things, it's about money, money, and money. Zooming out a bit, Automattic acquired Tumblr and like all those before it seems to be choking on it. Competitors like Wix, Squarespace, WebFlow and Shopify are all nipping at WordPress' marketshare. I don't know what WordPress.com's stats look like, but blogging is out of sytle. New cool kids want the new black. That is to be social media influencers. Alo…

> blogging is out of sytle OTOH maybe the majority of WP users are not blogging. It's anecdotal but I know about a dozen WP users first-hand (and maintain a couple of those installations) and none of them use it for blogging. It's mostly for marketing websites and shops with WooCommerce.

[deleted]

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#48

Post by dmvdoug »

DannyBee wrote: post #38
chuckadams wrote: post #2

COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations; (2) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; (3) Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq.; (4) Attempted Extortion; (5) Unfair Competition, Cal. Bus. Prof. Code§ 17200, et seq.; (6) Promissory Estoppel; (7) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement; (8) Declaratory Judgment of Non-Dilution; (9) Libel; (10) Trade…

Of these, the ones that are interesting are basically 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10. The CFAA claim here is actually basically an extortion claim (plus other throwaway general claims) framed in CFAA terms. See 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(7) This is actually somewhat uncommon to see :) However, it seems likely to be dismissed (without prejudice) or need to be amended since it looks like it doesn't plead the claim properly. "(g)Any person…

Well, there’s also specifically the element of exceeding authorization that doesn’t even seem plausible on its face.

The real meat of the federal complaint is the request for a declaratory judgment.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#49

Post by lolinder »

jameslk wrote: post #26
sys13 wrote: post #10

What's sad here is that this dispute isn't likely to make Wordpress any better, but rather send money to lawyers and reduce enthusiasm for the OSS project.

I’m an arm length removed from all this drama having not used Wordpress in a while, but to be honest this opinion feels overblown. To an outsider, it just looks like some legal issue between two entities irrelevant to my concerns on whether I’d use or contribute to Wordpress in the future. Something that happens between corporations all the time My guess is there will be some settlement, one party will walk away with…

One of the two entities completely controls the plugin ecosystem and wielded that control against the other entity (the largest WordPress host except, possibly, Automattic itself) to block them and all of their customers out of the ecosystem over this dispute.

That's why this matters to average developers. WordPress is the plugin ecosystem, and messing around with it does as much damage to the WordPress ecosystem as left pad did to npm—it's not unrecoverable, but it's a major setback that could quickly become unrecoverable.

Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]

#50

Post by photomatt »

dangrossman wrote: post #42

There's a "no forking" clause in the term sheet Automattic sent to WP Engine: https://automattic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/term-sheet... IANAL, but the WordPress license (GPLv2) says that if you attempt to sublicense the software or otherwise distribute it under different terms, you forfeit your own license to it: "4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided un…

This was a separate agreement from their GPL license, which of course allows them to fork. Sorry it's not clear from the term sheet, but this was about them forking our Stripe extension to replace the attribution from us to them for WooCommerce sites hosted on WP Engine. Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy.
Post reply on HN