Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
701–710 of 717 posts
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#702Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I was referring to the fundamental question of whether conditioning a trademark license on behavior is allowed. I don't think it counts as restricting GPL rights in a way that'd trigger the clause, and you do.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#703Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was referring to the fundamental question of whether conditioning a trademark license on behavior is allowed. I don't think it counts as restricting GPL rights in a way that'd trigger the clause, and you do.
Are you saying you don't think the GPL forbids attempting to redistribute with reduced rights, or you don't think offering a contract which does precisely that (in exchange for trademark consideration) constitutes an attempt?
Separately, the GPL calls out that you're allowed to place a restriction on your distributed code when it comes to trademarks, in that you're not required to license your trademark. I.e. you're allowed to distribute code that's GPL-licensed but that it's impossible for people to legally use as-provided without either forking it or obtaining an extra license from you. v3 is a lot more explicit about this, but it seems implicit in v2 as well.
You could certainly take the position that any sort of trademark license containing usage restrictions at all qualifies as a restriction under the GPL, so your only choices are to completely allow or forbid usage of your trademarks without any conditions. I disagree with that view.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#704Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying you don't think the GPL forbids attempting to redistribute with reduced rights, or you don't think offering a contract which does precisely that (in exchange for trademark consideration) constitutes an attempt?
Mostly, I don't think this contract qualifies as an attempt to restrict your rights for that clause. It's an offer to give WP Engine something that they're not required to be given, in exchange for WP Engine not doing something while that contract is in effect. Crucially, they're not giving up their right to fork, they're just agreeing not to use it so long as the trademark license contract is active. And the term sh…
You've interchangeably described WPEngine's consideration under the contract to be "something", "stuff", and "behavior" – this vagueness seems to be dodging the issue: what specifically, as you understand it, would WPEngine have to give up under the terms of the contract Matt presented, in exchange for usage of the trademarks?
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#705Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mostly, I don't think this contract qualifies as an attempt to restrict your rights for that clause. It's an offer to give WP Engine something that they're not required to be given, in exchange for WP Engine not doing something while that contract is in effect. Crucially, they're not giving up their right to fork, they're just agreeing not to use it so long as the trademark license contract is active. And the term sh…
> It's an offer to give WP Engine something that they're not required to be given, in exchange for WP Engine not doing something while that contract is in effect You've interchangeably described WPEngine's consideration under the contract to be "something", "stuff", and "behavior" – this vagueness seems to be dodging the issue: what specifically , as you understand it, would WPEngine have to give up under the terms o…
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#706Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's an offer to give WP Engine something that they're not required to be given, in exchange for WP Engine not doing something while that contract is in effect You've interchangeably described WPEngine's consideration under the contract to be "something", "stuff", and "behavior" – this vagueness seems to be dodging the issue: what specifically , as you understand it, would WPEngine have to give up under the terms o…
> Crucially, they're not giving up their right to fork, they're just agreeing not to use it so long as the trademark license contract is active.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#707Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Crucially, they're not giving up their right to fork, they're just agreeing not to use it so long as the trademark license contract is active.
That's just a different way of saying they give up their right to fork (temporarily, for the duration of the contract).
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#708Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m with you Matt! I like your strategy here.
I was curious about your defense of Matt's behavior in this thread but your empathy makes sense given that you work on a similar project that you describe as: > A static site that is 100% free and open-source, competing with several businesses operating scammy subscription models. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30295629 Is this a competitor to Wordpress? Can you elaborate more about how the competition in this…
You surely know that scammy subscription models are rife in every space. That's why open-source champions like Matt are an inspiration. But nobody's perfect, so have a little grace.
Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#709Re: Filed: WP Engine Inc. v Automattic Inc. and Matthew Charles Mullenweg [pdf]
#710Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm very comfortable with the truth of everything being public, it's on our side. The legal case will drag out for years.
hmm.. no, I don't think it is all on your side, sad to say. I was with you until I read this message you sent to Heather Brunner: >> If you decline, on Monday morning, I tell Greg Mondres: * Lee's refusal to negotiate terms to resolve our conflict. * Your interviewing with Automattic over the past year. * I will possibly tell the press all of the above. That's just so obviously threatening and uncalled for. Even if B…
And honestly in the territory of being legally actionable.