this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
261 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58292 readers
3925 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The blocked resources in question? Automatic security and features updates and plugin/theme repository access. Matt Mullenweg reasserted his claim that this was a trademark issue. In tandem, WordPress.org updated its Trademark Policy page to forbid WP Engine specifically (way after the Cease & Desist): from "you are free to use ['WP'] n any way you see fit" to a diatribe:

The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/26/wordpress-vs-wp-engine-drama-explained attempts to provide a full chronology so far.

Edit:

The WordPress Foundation, which owns the trademark, has also filed to trademark “Managed WordPress” and “Hosted WordPress.” Developers and providers are worried that if these trademarks are granted, they could be used against them.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 43 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Yeah, open source licenses don't entitle you to use trademarks.

This looks pretty bad to me.

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 22 points 1 day ago (2 children)

WP Engine for WordPress.
That seems to be the commonly accepted solution if you look at other 3rd party trademark cases - situations like "RIF is fun for Reddit" coming to mind.

[–] interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Wordoress engine for wordpress ?

[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 2 points 1 hour ago

Reddit is fun is fun for Reddit. The WP is just WP, just like RIF is just RIF.

[–] lud@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] JohnEdwa@sopuli.xyz 10 points 1 day ago

Yes, because it used to be"Reddit is Fun", which wasn't okay. That was the point.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Like JohnEdwa said, using a trademark to refer to someone else's product is considered nominative fair use: "referencing a mark to identify the actual goods and services that the trademark holder identifies with the mark."

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They're very obviously using the trademark in a manner that implies endorsement.

That is absolutely trademark infringement.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

At most, they just ambiguously used "Powered by WordPress Experts" once. I don't see how the evidence misleads people into thinking there was an endorsement.

IMO, dumb people confuse stuff all the time, like the Minecraft Gamepedia with the Minecraft Wikia back then. The meager amount of evidence presented does not convince me that WP Engine has done any actual harm to the WordPress brand.

But yeah, the smart way out would've been adding a "WP Engine is not associated with WordPress.org", at least one below the "WP ENGINE®, VELOCITIZE®, TORQUE®, EVERCACHE®, and the cog logo service marks are owned by WPEngine, Inc." footer. All in the past now, though. At the best both companies are tomfools.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They explicitly call their engine Wordpress more than once in those examples. You cannot do that.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes they can. It’s actually WordPress, so it’s nominative.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, they can't, because no, it isn't. That's what trademarks are for. You can't use a trademarked name to refer to your competing product.

Open source projects are generally permissive in terms of people repackaging their code for distribution for different platforms within reasonable guidelines, but even that is a sufficient change that they aren't obligated to allow their trademarks to be used that way.

It is no longer Wordpress once it's modified. That's what trademark is for.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think we should agree to disagree that it was modified enough here.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no "enough". Any modification at all takes their permission to use their trademark.

Most allow you to do so within reasonable guidelines, but that only gives you the benefit of the doubt if it's ambiguous. As soon as they tell you that you don't have permission to use their trademark on your altered version, you can't use it.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -2 points 1 day ago

But is gatekeeping the configuration files or wrapping around the software really modification?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can't go and modify something and violate their trademarks in the process lol.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can't, and I'm disagreeing that what they were doing counts as modification.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did they change anything? If so, it's modification.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is the question. I think this is all perfectly achievable by only writing new, separate software to selectively gatekeep the configuration files without changing the source code of WordPress itself. Like I said, not dedicating more resources to WordPress.org doesn't give WP Engine the moral high ground either, though.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To be honest it doesn't really matter if it's modified or an entirely different product offering. It seems it is trying to muddy the waters with the name WP.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 1 day ago

IMO that part's entirely fine. After all, it is a webhosting engine for WordPress. Would you say the same about e.g. NameMC.com?