8 ms·

Here is the original source for the claim, which is on Automattic's website: https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-legal-perspective/ https:/

• neilperetz 2y ago
  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?
  • legitster 2y ago
    I will ask on behalf of the entire Wordpress community - is there any part of the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt?
    • neilperetz 2y ago
      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.
      • jonnypants83 2y ago
        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?
        • nchmy 2y ago
          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
          • neilperetz 2y ago
            Despite our sometimes fervent wishes, lawyers don't control clients. We are not puppeteers.
            • NeonNautilus 2y ago
              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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41726834 Is that true or false?
            • nchmy 2y ago
              So what you're saying is that you "fervently" think your boss should shut up because he is giving his legal opponent fuel for their case against his extortion and other charges? And that he's making you write things that you don't understand or particularly agree with? I promise you, your integrity (or at least your license to practice law) are worth more than Matt's sinking ship. I hope you can move on to do something meaningful with you practice
              • neilperetz 2y ago
                No, that's not what I am saying. Nice try with the leading question though.
              • Ballantara 2y ago
                he's never going to move on to anything meaningful, he's fully cooked
            • wasteduniverse 2y ago
              [dead]
      • DonnieBurger 2y ago
        I'll take that as a "no." unless proven otherwise.
        • deffnotabot 2y ago
          [dead]
        • neilperetz 2y ago
          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.
          • ThePowerOfFuet 2y ago
            "that" was referring to your reply to their straightforward yes/no question being anything but.
            • neilperetz 2y ago
              So you interpret "is there any part of the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt?" as being a YES or NO question? I interpret it as a request for information about what is Matt's role in the ecosystem and I was gathering information to share about that. However, if you are not interested in factual information, the answer is: YES, there are various parts of the the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt.
              • slenk 2y ago
                Which ones aren't under his control? HR? Legal? Because no sane person would be letting him do this
              • pwillia7 2y ago
                While I love the use of passive aggressive language, in this case, as it was originally written, "However, if you are not interested in factual information, the answer is: YES" causes some globule of confusion to the primary reader -- Is this to imply that the answer Yes to the question about Matt's control over the organizations named WordPress is _not_ in fact factual? Dictated not read. YMHAOS
  • pluginvulns 2y ago
    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 https://youtu.be/OUJgahHjAKU?t=442 [2] https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233-0808.pdf https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233... [3] https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/ https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/ [4] https://wordpressfoundation.org/news/2010/trademark/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/news/2010/trademark/ [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/donation https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/donation
    • neilperetz 2y ago
      You wrote: "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." Indeed. And there was a lot of Consideration given in this exchange. Automattic owned 100% of the WordPress trademarks. Automattic's "Consideration" was to give all the non-commercial use of those trademarks to the WordPress Foundation. Consider a simple, but apt analogy. You own a car. You decide to give someone else the right to drive your car on the weekends, however you retain the right to drive it during the week. Did you provide Consideration for the right to drive the car during the week? Of course - the recipient previously had nothing and you gave them the right to drive your car on the weekend. The only lack of Consideration here was that the person getting the weekend driving rights gave you nothing in exchange for those.
• photomatt 2y ago
  Sorry for that error, the post has been updated now.
  • kinkora 2y ago
    Thanks for clarifying on that error. I am not involved in the wordpress community in any shape or form but am fairly privy to what it is along with the open source world yet.. even I am finding it hard with confusing and/or conflating statements on what falls under the non-profit, foundation, commercial entity, etc. But even if you ignore random stranger me from the internet, wouldn't it flag something in you that your own legal representative got it wrong on an official company post clarifying the structure? Even if I apply the most charitable interpretation, it seems Neil is also equally confused or at least not on the same page as you since he is unable to respond consistently in the other threads? I am sure you will at least see why that everyone is just perplexed by how obtused the whole structure between the WordPress.org, WordPress The Foundation and Automattic.
    • neilperetz 2y ago
      As I noted above, we are preparing a blog post with further detail about Matt's role in the community. Of course, if that doesn't provide sufficient clarity, let us know.
  • meltdownMatt 2y ago
    How about how the non-profit Wordpress Foundation lists the Wordpress Plugins and Themes indexes as Foundation projects, while you maintain that they’re something you personally own, and are openly controlling for the sake of your profit-seeking conflict with WPE? https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/ It’s ironic that you make analogies to “getting Al Capone” while you yourself appear to be engaged in a decade-long tax fraud. But like your constant allegations of “astroturfing by WPE” to explain why everybody holds you in contempt, I guess it’s easily explained as narcissistic projection. It’s not astroturfing. Everybody can read you, Matt. And they don’t like what they see.
• FateOfNations 2y ago
  It seems like they used "non-profit" in that sentence to mean: "an undertaking being conducted for a purpose other than making a profit" …rather than… "an organization that has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as being organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes as set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code."
  • LordAtlas 2y ago
    You would think an attorney of all people would be more careful with their words, especially with terms like "non-profit".
    • neilperetz 2y ago
      Sorry that even attorneys can have typos.
      • meltdownMatt 2y ago
        That’s a pretty meaningful mistake, given that the nature of the non-profit entanglement is fundamental to several claims. It seems like you were as confused as the community was, which sure doesn’t help any of Matt’s claims about everything being “open” and “transparent” all along. Well, I guess this thread answers the question of “how can Matt’s lawyer possibly be encouraging this?” Penny-wise and pound foolish.
      • pwillia7 2y ago
        Which word was meant to be used instead of non-profit here?
      • mldevv 2y ago
        Its been almost a week, what correction would you like to make to this? You've been dodging and the community deserves honest answers.