- 99comments
- 18comments
- 11comments
- 10comments
- 4comments
- 61comments
- 37comments
- 424comments
- 422comments
- 1comments
- 29comments
- 225comments
- 2comments
- 30comments
- 449comments
- 230comments
- 150comments
- 23comments
- 55comments
- 138comments
- 1comments
- 91comments
- 84comments
- 105comments
- 27comments
- 38comments
- 46comments
- 15comments
- 137comments
- 423comments
I'm very excited to have Mary on board. :)
Can you clarify if this is a 1:1 backfill for Josepha's role or if her scope will be different?
The scope will be significantly broader as Mary brings a lot of talents to the ecosystem.
Can you clarify if "Executive Director of WordPress.org" is the same job as "Executive Director of the WordPress Foundation"?
I know you personally own wordpress.org and not the foundation (as many people suspected) so this is unclear.
There is a wordpressfoundation<dot>org, so I doubt it. In my opinion <dot>org is software repo/wp-inc HQ.. and <dot>com is commercial and hosting enterprise. But of course, let's hear from the horse's mouth himself!! :-P
Totally different. The Foundation has no employees, only volunteers and three board members. (I'm one of them.)
I’d love to see something on the foundation website which explains this.
Thanks for your reply.
Indeed, a blog post with more detail is forthcoming.
What legal entity is WordPress.org insured under, and who cuts the checks?
Wordpress.org isn't a legal entity. It's simply a domain owned by Matt. It seems Matt has a license to use the Wordpress trademarks.
The Wordpress Foundation is a non-profit legal entity with a tiny budget. It appears the only thing it does is serve as a holding entity for the trademarks and the for-profit company than operates the WordCamp conferences.
I suspect that Automattic is the one who foots the bill for the infrastructure behind Wordpress.org, but that's not clear.
Matt talks about transparency, but how everything operates is a muddled mess.
Automattic's website (https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg...) says otherwise:
This is straight from Matt, himself:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41782365
The article has been updated.
Matt is apparently in full-blown CYA mode.
He's far too used to just referring to, and treating, all these entities synonymously, and now that someone is pointing out all these glaring little admissions of exactly that, he is frantically trying to alter the record.
He's obviously paying close attention to HN, even when he's not on a posting binge making things worse. One can only imagine WP Engine's lawfirm is doing the same.
Executive Director of WordPress.org is simply a job title at Automattic. Josepha found out about the WP Engine ban from wordpress.org in real time along with the rest of the community.
Can you clarify when you're going to cease your public tantrums and your erratic idiotic behavior that is causing problems for Wordpress users worldwide?
At this point, I am not even sure what Wordpress.org is anymore other than a marketing department for Automattic. It's hard to know if this is a real position with real people reporting to it or if the entire org is a paper department.
I suspect we'll only find out when WP Engine makes them explain it all out in court.
WP Engine, the hero we didn't even know we needed. /s
IMO that is why .org was not named in the lawsuit - it is simply an alter ego of MM
wp.org is owned by Matt, so basically WordPress.org is Matt
Apparently Automattic states she's back working for them: https://x.com/automattic/status/1843750645037445200
So then what is WordPress.org in this context?
WordPress.org seems to be used to refer to Matt Mullenweg [1], as he apparently personally owns it, though one of Automattic's lawyers said last week that it is a non-profit that is separate from the WordPress Foundation [2].
The previous Executive Director of WordPress was also an Automattic employee. When they were announced in the role their employment with Automattic also wasn't disclosed [3].
[1] https://www.pluginvulnerabilities.com/2024/10/02/who-or-what... [2] https://www.pluginvulnerabilities.com/2024/10/03/automattic-... [3] https://make.wordpress.org/updates/2019/01/16/expanding-word...
All the information in the links you shared is totally wrong. Our lawyers have never said that WordPress.org is a non-profit or owned by the Foundation. It's owned and run by me personally, and I have a trademark license from the WordPress Foundation to use the WordPress name and brand on the site.
Here is the original source for the claim, which is on Automattic's website: https://automattic.com/2024/10/02/wordpress-trademarks-a-leg...
The author is identified as Neil Peretz, who it says is an associate general counsel at Automattic. He says:
"The Foundation also licensed the name WordPress to the non-profit WordPress.org, which runs a website that facilitates access to WordPress-related software."
A graphic included in the post similarly claims that "Right to use name as part of non-profit activities" went to WordPress. With the arrow coming from the WordPress Foundation.
We contacted Automattic's press email for clarification on that claim on Thursday. We have yet to hear back and the post hasn't been updated.
Hi, it's Neil Peretz. I was just alerted to your post. I understand there's a question you have. How can I help you?
I will ask on behalf of the entire Wordpress community - is there any part of the Wordpress cluster of organizations that do not ultimately answer to Matt?
Hi Legitster. I will work with colleagues on a response to your question. It's a broad topic given how many facets there are to the WordPress community.
come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?
I'll take that as a "no." unless proven otherwise.
We don't have any questions, but there are possibly several inaccuracies in the post you wrote. At least the information appears to contradict other information provided on your side.
The post has been updated to say that "The Foundation also licensed the name to the website WordPress.org, which facilitates widespread access to WordPress-related software at no charge." Websites presumably can't have trademark licenses. There must be a legal entity. Matt Mullenweg is claiming that he personally has the second license for the trademark [1], so not a website. A graphic included in the post similarly still claims that "Right to use name as part of non-profit activities" went to WordPress. With the arrow coming from the WordPress Foundation. There doesn't appear to be a non-profit.
The post states that "The right to use the WordPress marks for commercial purposes (e.g., selling software, hosting, and agency services) is owned by Automattic." The publicly available license states that Automattic has the right to use the trademark "in connection with the hosting of blogs and web sites [2]." So it looks like Automattic's rights are more limited. Maybe the license has been amended or there is an unstated belief that the license has a wider scope than the plain language of the license suggests. Having the foundation release all licenses agreements it has would help to clear things up, possibility for you, but definitely for everyone else.
In explaining how the license agreement between the foundation and Automattic happened, the post says that 'In order to effect a valid license agreement, there needs to be an actual exchange of value from both sides, which lawyers call "consideration."' But Matt Mullenweg [3] and what appears to be an Automattic employee writing for the WordPress Foundation [4] both stated at the time that Auomattic donated the trademark. Legally, a donation can't involve a consideration [5]. That would suggest there isn't a valid license agreement or there wasn't actually a donation.
We would suggest you consult with a lawyer about all that, but you are a lawyer.
[1] https://youtu.be/OUJgahHjAKU?t=442 [2] https://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/assignment-tm-4233... [3] https://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trademark/ [4] https://wordpressfoundation.org/news/2010/trademark/ [5] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/donation
You wrote: "In explaining how the license agreement between the foundation and Automattic happened, the post says that 'In order to effect a valid license agreement, there needs to be an actual exchange of value from both sides, which lawyers call "consideration."
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.
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?
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.
Sorry for that error, the post has been updated now.
Thanks for clarifying on that error.
I am not involved in the wordpress community in any shape or form but am fairly privy to what it is along with the open source world yet.. even I am finding it hard with confusing and/or conflating statements on what falls under the non-profit, foundation, commercial entity, etc.
But even if you ignore random stranger me from the internet, wouldn't it flag something in you that your own legal representative got it wrong on an official company post clarifying the structure? Even if I apply the most charitable interpretation, it seems Neil is also equally confused or at least not on the same page as you since he is unable to respond consistently in the other threads?
I am sure you will at least see why that everyone is just perplexed by how obtused the whole structure between the WordPress.org, WordPress The Foundation and Automattic.
As I noted above, we are preparing a blog post with further detail about Matt's role in the community. Of course, if that doesn't provide sufficient clarity, let us know.
How about how the non-profit Wordpress Foundation lists the Wordpress Plugins and Themes indexes as Foundation projects, while you maintain that they’re something you personally own, and are openly controlling for the sake of your profit-seeking conflict with WPE?
https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/
It’s ironic that you make analogies to “getting Al Capone” while you yourself appear to be engaged in a decade-long tax fraud. But like your constant allegations of “astroturfing by WPE” to explain why everybody holds you in contempt, I guess it’s easily explained as narcissistic projection.
It’s not astroturfing. Everybody can read you, Matt. And they don’t like what they see.
It seems like they used "non-profit" in that sentence to mean:
"an undertaking being conducted for a purpose other than making a profit"
…rather than…
"an organization that has been recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as being organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes as set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code."
You would think an attorney of all people would be more careful with their words, especially with terms like "non-profit".
Sorry that even attorneys can have typos.
That’s a pretty meaningful mistake, given that the nature of the non-profit entanglement is fundamental to several claims. It seems like you were as confused as the community was, which sure doesn’t help any of Matt’s claims about everything being “open” and “transparent” all along.
Well, I guess this thread answers the question of “how can Matt’s lawyer possibly be encouraging this?”
Penny-wise and pound foolish.
Which word was meant to be used instead of non-profit here?
Its been almost a week, what correction would you like to make to this? You've been dodging and the community deserves honest answers.
You're so bad at this...
Considering you own wordpress.org and the third link, that you claim is hosting completely wrong information, is on Wordpress.org you should ensure it has correct information. Especially, since it appears to have been written by you.
And therein lies absolutely 0 conflict of interest :) /s
Does Mary Hubbard have the ability to kick Matt Mullenweg out of the org when he implodes? If not, she's not really an executive director of anything, but merely a puppet.
I feel like I've seen this entire song and dance routine before with the "Rails Foundation" — aka a cozy insiders club built to prop up DHH and his worldview. I find all of this stuff distasteful and not at all in keeping with the spirit of open source.
First, she's working for Automattic/wp dot org, not the WP Foundation.
Also, an executive director never has control over the board - they serve the board.
But a major difference between the WP Foundation and Rails Foundation is that the Rails one appears to be a legitimate foundation, with real budget and activities, real governance and transparency provided by actual, living, involved, knowledgeable humans who have agency.
The Wordpress Foundation is a shell for trademark and tax fraud... It has no governance, transparency, or even seemingly any activities. And the TWO non-Matt directors are completely MIA, with one of them seemingly having no Wordpress affiliation while also working in Matt's much-maligned private equity industry (who also fund his own company!)
Also, the Rails Trademark is under exclusive, seemingly transparent license to the Rails Foundation.
Whereas the WP Trademark was ceremoniously "given" to the WP Foundation (controlled, in effect, exclusively by Matt) in 2010, and then secretly given right back to Matt the same day.
I reported up to Mary for a while at Automattic and she's a fantastic leader with low/no tolerance for drama or egos. I think .org is lucky to have her and I'm hopeful she'll bring true product leadership and perspective to it.