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

691–700 of 717 posts

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

#691

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kemayo wrote: post #689
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #687

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trademarks are a red herring here. What the GPL says is that if Automattic attempts to get someone to give up their GPL rights (e.g. the right to fork) , then Automattic automatically loses their own GPL rights as punishment for the attempt. This is the section 4 you speak of. Specifically, Automattic cannot offer terms that say "in exchange for trademark stuff (or anything else), you agree to give up your GPL rights…

I really don't think that's the way to interpret it. Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The GPL says that's allowed -- you're not required to grant a trademark license.

> Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do".

The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do"

Such an attempt to get someone to forfeit their GPL right-to-fork (even for consideration) is forbidden by the GPL license granted to Automattic, and the punishment for violating that GPL license in such a way, is that Automattic forfeits their own license.

Automattic is not allowed to propose a contract which limits someone's GPL right-to-fork. They did so anyways, and thus should lose their own license.

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

#692

Post by kemayo »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #691
kemayo wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really don't think that's the way to interpret it. Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The GPL says that's allowed -- you're not required to grant a trademark license.

> Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Such an attempt to get someone to forfeit their GPL right-to-fork (even for consideration) is forbidden by the GPL license granted to Automattic, and the punishment for violating that GPL license in…

> The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do"

Those mean the same thing. It's implicit in the offer existing that you can choose not take the offer, and so don't get the stuff in it.

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

#693

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kemayo wrote: post #692
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Automattic is saying "you have the right to fork, but you can't use the trademarks if you do". The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Such an attempt to get someone to forfeit their GPL right-to-fork (even for consideration) is forbidden by the GPL license granted to Automattic, and the punishment for violating that GPL license in…

> The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Those mean the same thing. It's implicit in the offer existing that you can choose not take the offer, and so don't get the stuff in it.

If it is the same thing, then the phrasing you responded to is correct, which explains why the offer is not allowed under the GPL.

If any offer is made by 1 party which includes the other party giving up their GPL right to fork, that offer constitutes an attempt under the GPL to redistribute GPL code under reduced rights, which is a violation of the GPL, with the punishment being a revocation of the offerer's rights.

Yes, the offeree could choose not to accept the offer, but that does not matter: the mere offering of the offer constitutes an attempt, and thus a violation of section 4.

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

#694

Post by fastball »

jeltz wrote: post #668
caeril wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but this is evil CEO garbage Correction: this is Evil CEO vs Evil CEO garbage. Casting WPEngine as some sort of saint is highly inaccurate.

But only one of them also controls the Wordpress foundation so who cares about the CEO of WPE?

If you were not a user of WPE, you were not affected. If you are a user of WPE, presumably you care about the actions of their CEO?

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

#695

Post by [deleted] »

mthoms wrote: post #244
photomatt wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trademark originally belonged 100% to Automattic. It transferred it to the Foundation, and retained the commercial license and the ability to commercially sub-license. The Foundation gave me a license to run WordPress.org. This has all been public, though I agree it's complicated and not widely understood.

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] That's demonstrably untrue. The assignment on file with the USPTO is clear: >WordPress Foundation, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, ... hereby grants to Automattic Inc., an exclusi…

[deleted]

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

#696

Post by fastball »

wise_young_man wrote: post #271
photomatt wrote: post #57

Howdy, Matthew Charles Mullenweg from the lawsuit here. One thing I'm surprised they disclosed is on page 35 that Heather Brunner at WP Engine was interviewing for a job at Automattic. That's why we were spending so much time together 1:1 without her team there in the meetings I posted here: https://automattic.com/2024/10/01/wpe-terms/ They lied that it was to run WordPress.com, though, she wanted to be the Executive…

Matt. You are rich. What is behind your motivations here? You seem to be very candid and passionate about this but I must be missing something. Why spend your time doing this? What’s your end goal?

He is passionate about Wordpress and wants corporations who derive significant value from it to contribute back to the open source project?

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

#697

Post by fastball »

legitster wrote: post #347

I've been a long Wordpress user and proponent for a long time. Until a week ago I had never heard the name Mullenweg. Regardless of who's in the right or wrong here (I have my opinions), my perception of Wordpress flipped a switch overnight. It went from this quiet, reliable, refreshingly boring open source platform to yet another cult of personality tech fiefdom.

Seems a bit self-contradicting.

If it actually was a cult of personality tech fiefdom, and you are a long-time Wordpress user, presumably you would've heard of Mullenweg before this?

The fact that you hadn't indicates that it's not.

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

#698

Post by fastball »

snowwrestler wrote: post #63
jameslk wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Matt seems to have jumped on WP Engine essentially because they were making a lot of money. So now, any other company that is making a lot of money (or hoping to make a lot money) with Wordpress may wonder whether Matt will target them too. What's the criteria? Is there some exact revenue or profit number a company needs to stay under to avoid this sort of attack? Does Matt only get mad at hosting companies, or do ot…

Making a lot of money and contributing effectively nothing back to Wordpress (the open source project).

In WP Engine's own complaint they say that they've "invested hundreds of millions of dollars and 14 years of hard work building a successful business to serve that community", and nothing about contributing to the project itself. Which to me indicates that they indeed have contributed very little to the project they've made a huge amount of money from.

You can argue WPE doesn't need to and that this is a feature (not a bug) of open source. But Matt Mullenweg seems to disagree and wants to use the fact that they are also capitalizing on a trademark they have no license to in order to press the issue.

From my perspective, however, it seems unlikely Automattic will win this. Automattic seems to only be enforcing their trademark as a response to WPE not contributing back to Wordpress, which is not something WPE is legally obligated to do. Trademarks need to be defended universally and without reservation.

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

#699

Post by kemayo »

ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #693
kemayo wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The contract says the opposite – it states "you can use the trademark, but you have to forfeit your right to fork if you do" Those mean the same thing. It's implicit in the offer existing that you can choose not take the offer, and so don't get the stuff in it.

If it is the same thing, then the phrasing you responded to is correct, which explains why the offer is not allowed under the GPL. If any offer is made by 1 party which includes the other party giving up their GPL right to fork, that offer constitutes an attempt under the GPL to redistribute GPL code under reduced rights, which is a violation of the GPL, with the punishment being a revocation of the offerer's rights.…

I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

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

#700

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

kemayo wrote: post #699
ImPostingOnHN wrote: post #693

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it is the same thing, then the phrasing you responded to is correct, which explains why the offer is not allowed under the GPL. If any offer is made by 1 party which includes the other party giving up their GPL right to fork, that offer constitutes an attempt under the GPL to redistribute GPL code under reduced rights, which is a violation of the GPL, with the punishment being a revocation of the offerer's rights.…

I don't think we're going to agree on this one.

It sounded like we agreed when you said that your phrasing meant the same thing as my phrasing.

We agreed that a contract was offered which, if accepted, would revoke the GPL right to fork.

We agreed that the GPL doesn't allow such a revocation of the GPL right to fork (even if it is part of a contract).

We agreed that even attempting such a violation (e.g. by offering such a violating contract) is itself a violation of the GPL.

Honestly, it sounds like we're in violent agreement. The only specific disagreement you've expressed is in the best way to word something among several options which you say are equivalent.

Post reply on HN