News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine. Parent comment

Re:Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine by tptacek on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @07:49PM (#41715692)
Can you be more specific about where the WordPress licensing grants the trademark usage WPE is using? WordPress is GPL2, which doesn't have a lot to say about trademarks.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine by graeme on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @09:55PM (#41716485)
Isn't it just the law? Not obvious that terms such as "Wordpress Host" violate nominative fair use. They're commonly used throughout the industry as well.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine by tptacek on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @10:38PM (#41716671)
I would like to understand what "[t]he use of which were already allowed under the existing open source licenses..." from the preceding comment meant.

I'm not a lawyer. Nominative fair use is complicated, as is WPE's use of the WP marks. All I can hope for here is to understand what claims people are making.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine by graeme on Tuesday October 01, 2024 @10:44PM (#41716696)
Ah, fair point. Yeah I agree, the open source licenses have no bearing on the matter. Only permissions would come from either trademark law or a negotiated agreement.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine by FireBeyond on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @01:05AM (#41717350)
> use of the WP marks

I realize you may just have been abbreviating, but until the middle of this current dispute, the WordPress Foundation explicitly allowed the use of "WP". Matt just edited it after framing it as a trademark issue.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine by tptacek on Wednesday October 02, 2024 @03:21AM (#41718055)
Yes, I'm just abbreviating.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Mullenweg threatens corporate takeover of WP Engine by gamblor956 on Thursday October 03, 2024 @12:08PM (#41732009)
Yes, it's basic trademark law. Matt's supporters are deliberately trying to obfuscate several issues to make it look like Matt is in the right.

Matt's was alleging violations of the license and the trademark. And he's wrong on both accounts.

[ Parent | on HN ]