undefined | Better HN

0 pointschrisandchris1y ago0 comments

That's true, but does not apply to this situation.

Automattic is not the owner of WordPress, the WordPress Foundation is. Even though many employees of Automattic work (maybe full-time) on WordPress [1].

So I sell your aspirin in my shop, and a friend of yours helped you package your aspirins and while doing that put some stickers onto your aspirin.

[1] https://www.df.eu/blog/wer-steckt-hinter-wordpress-ueber-die... (German)

0 comments

Matticus_Rex1y ago

Does WPF take issue with this operational decision by Automattic? If so, they have the avenues to deal with it, and they're the party who can claim to be aggrieved, if it violates some duty Automattic has to WPF. I seems more like this, from my understanding:

You sell a brand of aspirin in your shop. The brand has outsourced most of the production and decision-making to another company. That company puts messages on the bottle. If those messages bother me, I can bring it up with the brand and see if they'll address it, or stop carrying the brand, but the question of whether they've overstepped is for the brand owners rather than me.

FireBeyond1y ago

> and they're the party who can claim to be aggrieved, if it violates some duty Automattic has to WPF

Tortious interference - where one party (Automattic) interferes with a contractual relationship between two parties (WPengine, their customers), in this case by means of disparagement pushed to the dashboard of WPengine instances.

Matticus_Rex1y ago

Tortious interference requires that the interfering party induce the party to the contract to a breach of the contract. Where's that element?

1 more reply

mthoms1y ago

Here's the thing. Guess who is the head of the WordPress Foundation?

Matt Mullenweg. CEO of Automattic.

Now guess who The WordPress Foundation granted sole rights to sub-license their trademarks? You guessed it. Automattic.

Yeah, it gets worse the more you look at it.

keane1y ago

Automattic originally registered the trademark WordPress. They donated it to the WordPress Foundation while retaining a commercial license to the marks. https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-wordpress-foundation/

1 more reply

Matticus_Rex1y ago

How does that look worse?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointschrisandchris1y ago0 comments

That's true, but does not apply to this situation.

Automattic is not the owner of WordPress, the WordPress Foundation is. Even though many employees of Automattic work (maybe full-time) on WordPress [1].

So I sell your aspirin in my shop, and a friend of yours helped you package your aspirins and while doing that put some stickers onto your aspirin.

[1] https://www.df.eu/blog/wer-steckt-hinter-wordpress-ueber-die... (German)

0 comments

Matticus_Rex1y ago

FireBeyond1y ago

> and they're the party who can claim to be aggrieved, if it violates some duty Automattic has to WPF

Matticus_Rex1y ago

Tortious interference requires that the interfering party induce the party to the contract to a breach of the contract. Where's that element?

1 more reply

mthoms1y ago

Here's the thing. Guess who is the head of the WordPress Foundation?

Matt Mullenweg. CEO of Automattic.

Now guess who The WordPress Foundation granted sole rights to sub-license their trademarks? You guessed it. Automattic.

Yeah, it gets worse the more you look at it.

keane1y ago

1 more reply

Matticus_Rex1y ago

How does that look worse?

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse