Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Legitster. I will work with colleagues on a response to your question. It's a broad topic given how many facets there are to the WordPress community.
I'll take that as a "no." unless proven otherwise.
[dead]
Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
31–40 of 87 posts
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wordpress.org isn't a legal entity. It's simply a domain owned by Matt. It seems Matt has a license to use the Wordpress trademarks. The Wordpress Foundation is a non-profit legal entity with a tiny budget. It appears the only thing it does is serve as a holding entity for the trademarks and the for-profit company than operates the WordCamp conferences. I suspect that Automattic is the one who foots the bill for the…
> Wordpress.org isn't a legal entity. It's simply a domain owned by Matt. Automattic's website ( https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg... ) says otherwise: > The Foundation also licensed the name WordPress to the non-profit WordPress.org, which runs a website that facilitates access to WordPress-related software.
This is straight from Matt, himself:
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#33Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Legitster. I will work with colleagues on a response to your question. It's a broad topic given how many facets there are to the WordPress community.
come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?
Given how poorly written that article is (and how he has no control of his client), its not clear that Neil is actually a real lawyer
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wordpress.org isn't a legal entity. It's simply a domain owned by Matt. It seems Matt has a license to use the Wordpress trademarks. The Wordpress Foundation is a non-profit legal entity with a tiny budget. It appears the only thing it does is serve as a holding entity for the trademarks and the for-profit company than operates the WordCamp conferences. I suspect that Automattic is the one who foots the bill for the…
> Wordpress.org isn't a legal entity. It's simply a domain owned by Matt. Automattic's website ( https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg... ) says otherwise: > The Foundation also licensed the name WordPress to the non-profit WordPress.org, which runs a website that facilitates access to WordPress-related software.
The article has been updated.
> The Foundation also licensed the name to the website WordPress.org, which facilitates widespread access to WordPress-related software at no charge.
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#35Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Legitster. I will work with colleagues on a response to your question. It's a broad topic given how many facets there are to the WordPress community.
come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?
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.
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?
Given how poorly written that article is (and how he has no control of his client), its not clear that Neil is actually a real lawyer
Despite our sometimes fervent wishes, lawyers don't control clients. We are not puppeteers.
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hi Legitster. I will work with colleagues on a response to your question. It's a broad topic given how many facets there are to the WordPress community.
I'll take that as a "no." unless proven otherwise.
While I love pronouns, they can lead to misunderstandings if not carefully defined.
Above it was written "I'll take that as a 'no'".
Could you explain what "that" refers to in your statement. I am asking because, lacking a clear definition of the question, I cannot say whether the answer is Yes, No, or something else.
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?
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.
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?
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given how poorly written that article is (and how he has no control of his client), its not clear that Neil is actually a real lawyer
Despite our sometimes fervent wishes, lawyers don't control clients. We are not puppeteers.
Matt has also claimed that you or someone else on his legal team has signed off on his posting. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726834
Is that true or false?
Re: Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here is the original source for the claim, which is on Automattic's website: https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg... The author is identified as Neil Peretz, who it says is an associate general counsel at Automattic. He says: "The Foundation also licensed the name WordPress to the non-profit WordPress.org, which runs a website that facilitates access to WordPress-related software." A graphic i…
Hi, it's Neil Peretz. I was just alerted to your post. I understand there's a question you have. How can I help you?
We don't have any questions, but there are possibly several inaccuracies in the post you wrote. At least the information appears to contradict other information provided on your side.
The post has been updated to say that "The Foundation also licensed the name to the website WordPress.org, which facilitates widespread access to WordPress-related software at no charge." Websites presumably can't have trademark licenses. There must be a legal entity. Matt Mullenweg is claiming that he personally has the second license for the trademark [1], so not a website. A graphic included in the post similarly still claims that "Right to use name as part of non-profit activities" went to WordPress. With the arrow coming from the WordPress Foundation. There doesn't appear to be a non-profit.
The post states that "The right to use the WordPress marks for commercial purposes (e.g., selling software, hosting, and agency services) is owned by Automattic." The publicly available license states that Automattic has the right to use the trademark "in connection with the hosting of blogs and web sites [2]." So it looks like Automattic's rights are more limited. Maybe the license has been amended or there is an unstated belief that the license has a wider scope than the plain language of the license suggests. Having the foundation release all licenses agreements it has would help to clear things up, possibility for you, but definitely for everyone else.
In explaining how the license agreement between the foundation and Automattic happened, the post says that 'In order to effect a valid license agreement, there needs to be an actual exchange of value from both sides, which lawyers call "consideration."' But Matt Mullenweg [3] and what appears to be an Automattic employee writing for the WordPress Foundation [4] both stated at the time that Auomattic donated the trademark. Legally, a donation can't involve a consideration [5]. That would suggest there isn't a valid license agreement or there wasn't actually a donation.
We would suggest you consult with a lawyer about all that, but you are a lawyer.
[1] https://youtu.be/OUJgahHjAKU?t=442 [2] https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233... [3] https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/ [4] https://wordpressfoundation.org/news/2010/trademark/ [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/donation