[mthoms]

Neil, thanks for your response. But (as you noted) there is still lots of confusion.

>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.

[neilperetz]

Hi mthoms. The question you asked is: "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."

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.

[mthoms]

Thanks Neil. I disagree strongly about dot org being non-commercial. Jetpack and Akismet (Automattic commercial products) have been "featured" plugins since time immemorial. That means they show up ahead of 60,000 other plugins, every time. There is massive commercial benefit to that.

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...".

[ValentineC]

> 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.

[mthoms]

Right, but none of that says anything to the effect of "excluding non-commercial use". It's a blanket assignment for "hosting of blogs and web sites that utilize any version or component of the WordPress open source publishing platform product or open source successor..."

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.

[jonnypants83]

Do you consider a site privately owned by Matt that advertises Matt's commercial products to be non-commercial because it also hosts open source code?