Re:Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
by ValentineC on Wednesday October 09, 2024 @09:00PM
(#41794506)
> 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.
If I understand your comment correctly, you are saying that Automattic is still the owner of the WordPress trademarks, and granted licenses for non-commercial use to the WordPress Foundation?
Re:Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
by metamichael on Thursday October 10, 2024 @12:13AM
(#41795433)
It's clear from what he's saying that Automattic once OWNED the trademarks, but transferred those trademarks to the WordPress Foundation, and thus Automattic is NO LONGER THE OWNER of said trademarks.
What Automattic has is an exclusive license to use and sell the commercial licenses of the trademark.
Re:Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
by jonnypants83 on Thursday October 10, 2024 @12:42AM
(#41795585)
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.
Re:Mary Hubbard New Executive Director of Wordpress.org
by pluginvulns on Thursday October 10, 2024 @11:41AM
(#41800022)
You need to keep reading the rest of what we wrote there. We were not disputing that explanation of a consideration. We are saying there can’t be a consideration in a donation and two employees of Automattic contemporaneously claimed it was donation. Either there wasn’t a donation or there isn’t a valid license agreement.
You also didn't address the other issues at all.
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.