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?
Is that true or false?
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
(Analogously, If software engineers only worked for perfect companies, companies wouldn’t have software engineers.)
Thanks for participating. I have an honest question:
How do you reconcile your post [0] claiming that Automattic controls all commercial aspects of the trademark with Matt's previous claim that "the most central piece of WordPress’s identity, its name, is now fully independent from any company" and that Automattic had "give[n] up control" of the marks? [1]
[0] https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg... [1] https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/
The WordPress community operates on an open source, non-commercial basis. The community decides what is included in each release of WordPress, how it's tested, what documentation accompanies it, etc.
Because the WordPress Foundation, not Automattic, owns the WordPress trademarks for non-commercial use, Automattic has no control or veto of what code is stamped with the WordPress label.
By contrast, if Automattic retained non-commercial control over the WordPress trademarks it could refuse to affix the WordPress label to work done by and released by core contributor groups.
In case you are not familiar with how WordPress decisionmaking works: Volunteer contributors self-organize into groups that set their own goals, interface with other groups, allocate resources, plan a schedule, and resolve issues according to a Community Code of Conduct (see https://make.wordpress.org/handbook/community-code-of-conduc...). You can learn about how decisions are made in the WordPress project at https://learn.wordpress.org/course/how-decisions-are-made-in....
I am going to operate under the assumption that others may have similar questions, which is why I think this is a good topic for a blog post.
>Because the WordPress Foundation, not Automattic, owns the WordPress trademarks for non-commercial use, Automattic has no control or veto of what code is stamped with the WordPress label.
Respectfully, how the "code is stamped" wasn't the question, and nobody was worried about that. What people were worried about around the time of Matt's post (previously linked) was corporate control over the marks. That is the context under which Matt made the claim.
Given that context, would you describe the trademarks as being "fully independent from any company"?
If I may pick your brain some more; Where does this distinction between commercial and non-commercial use come from? The trademark assignment does not appear to make any such distinction: "..an exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable right and license to use and otherwise exploit the trademarks...".
https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233...
Which brings up something else I hope you can clarify: how can The Foundation grant wordpress.org a license if the licence granted to Automattic is exclusive? Wordpress.org as you know, is not a non-profit.
Thanks.
One need not be a non-profit corporation to engage in non-commercial use. Distributing open source software at no charge is not a commercial activity.
An analogy might be you or I volunteering at a community event. We are individuals, not non-profit corporations, however we would be engaged in non-commmercial activity.
Just one more question if you don't mind -
Where does this distinction between commercial and non-commercial use come from? The trademark assignment does not appear to make any such distinction: "..an exclusive, fully-paid, royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sublicensable right and license to use and otherwise exploit the trademarks...".
Not the parent commenter, but I'm guessing it comes from the usage part after:
> in connection with the hosting of blogs and web sites that utilize any version or component of the WordPress open source publishing platform product or open source successor of any of the foregoing on or in connection with www.wordpress.com and www.wordpress.tv (each and collectively, together with any subdomains of any of the foregoing, "Automatic Sites"), providing support for the Automatic Sites, and/or substantially similar uses in connection with the Automatic Sites.
That means Automattic's rights ares not restricted in any way despite their claims that The Foundation has exclusive non-commercial rights and Automattic does not.
The person who ultimately controls what is included in a release of WordPress is the Release Lead. They are an employee of Automattic. We compiled a list of Release Leads going back to 2019: https://www.pluginvulnerabilities.com/2024/10/10/automattics...
It has been Matt Mullenweg 12 of 15 times. The other Release Leads were Josepha Haden Chomphosy and Matías Ventura, who were Automattic employees at the time.
So Automattic obviously does have control and a veto.
Matt has tweeted about his final approval over WordCamp events despite members of the volunteer groups operating under the belief they had the final say, which undermines any attempt to claim these volunteer groups have any control (only the illusion of control): https://x.com/ryancduff/status/1841834672059199590
Automattic just poached Jason Bahl from WPEngine to bring WPGraphQL into core WordPress, demonstrating very clearly that Automattic have control over WordPress core: https://wordpress.org/news/2024/10/wpgraphql/
Matt has shared that he owns WordPress.org personally but that Automattic employs hundreds of people to work on it and spends millions of dollars financing it.
Ultimately, you work for Automattic and report to Matt so you're obligated to share his version of the world, but the version of the world you're describing only exists in Matt's head. There's no way to frame what is happening as independent of Automattic. I know that it doesn't matter to you personally, this is just a job, and once you leave Automattic you'll look back and laugh at the absurdity of this situation. I guess the point of my comment is to say: we all know that you know this is nonsense, you're convincing nobody. If you actually believe this nonsense (which I doubt, you're not an idiot) then you need to do a much better job of convincing people.
Is this correct?
Could the foundation actually legally revoke Automattic's commercial rights? If so, what would be the requirements for that to happen? Are the foundations legal statutes available anywhere?
Thanks!
Who are the board members of the WPF, and how active are they? My understanding is that there are three, and two are active.
Who is the CEO of Automattic? Let's not be naive and pretend that Automattic has "no control" over the WordPress Foundation when they share Presidents.
For one simple example, why did Matt Mullenweg, President of the independent, "no control from Automattic", WordPress Foundation disinvite WP Engine from a community event they sponsored, because they were in a legal dispute with Matt Mullenweg, President of entirely independent, arms-length Automattic?
Are you also saying that Automattic employees have not led and had controlling power on teams that are making commits to WordPress?
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?
Don't white wash a completely inaccurate and misleading statement as a typing error - that treats people like fools.
ESPECIALLY since this is one of DOZENS of recently citable instances where Matt refers to WP.org, Automattic, and the Foundation almost interchangably.
"Rushing to fix years of (intentionally/conveniently) muddy waters on org structures" is not "a typo in the past" - this is insulting to your audience.