jonnypants83

7 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by jonnypants83 2y ago

   I agree in general, but there's still a problem with encouraging people for decades to build businesses around a version of WP hardcoded to .org, not letting them "phone home," not making clear that they were building on a pr
2. 2.▲
   by jonnypants83 2y ago

   Do you consider a site privately owned by Matt that advertises Matt's commercial products to be non-commercial because it also hosts open source code?
3. 3.▲
   by jonnypants83 2y ago

   I don't think that's clear. > 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.
4. 4.▲
   by 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?
5. 5.▲
   by jonnypants83 2y ago

   it is absolutely the case that you are required to go after infringers if you want to be able to enforce your trademark. A trademark isn't just another word for copyright. It's a signifier of a brand with consistent quality. If yo
6. 6.▲
   by jonnypants83 2y ago

   as I understand it the foundation board is matt and two people matt chose.
7. 7.▲
   by jonnypants83 2y ago

   to be fair I think it's the most damning part for him as a person
8. 8.▲
   by jonnypants83 2y ago

   the statements about the non-profit situation seem especially bad. He'll obviously have his own side of the story, but I'm guessing they didn't misread the tax filings.