WPF (draft) WordPress TM Policy and Automattic

[chipbennett]

So, a (draft) Trademark policy is available now at the WPF website.

Not to temper the excitement of the nascent, official transfer of the WordPress trademark from Automattic to WPF, but this clause from the policy struck me [emphasis added]:

We will grant permission to use the WordPress name and logo for projects that meet the following criteria:

• The primary purpose of your project is to promote the spread and improvement of the WordPress software.
• Your project is non-commercial in nature (it can make money to cover its costs or contribute to non-profit entities, but it cannot be run as a for-profit project or business).
• Your project neither promotes nor is associated with entities that currently fail to comply with the GPL license under which WordPress is distributed

.

Does this clause mean that Automattic will now need to re-name wordpress.com, since Automattic is clearly a for-profit business? Or is an exception made for Automattic? (Or am I completely misreading this clause?)

[Jane]

Matt would be the one to get into detail, but I believe that wordpress.com is basically grandfathered, and holds an exclusive commercial license or something like that. Other commercial entities can use the trademark within the conditions listed on the Foundation site. An example is that we recently granted permission to a commercial publisher to use the trademark on Stephanie Leary's new book. The main goal is to prevent people from using the trademark to confuse people into thinking a third-party site/product/company/project/whatever is part of the official open source project or has official approval,which has been a problem in the past when some companies have used the trademark in inappropriate ways (in their logo, etc).

[chipbennett]

Matt would be the one to get into detail, but I believe that wordpress.com is basically grandfathered, and holds an exclusive commercial license or something like that. Other commercial entities can use the trademark within the conditions listed on the Foundation site. An example is that we recently granted permission to a commercial publisher to use the trademark on Stephanie Leary's new book. The main goal is to prevent people from using the trademark to confuse people into thinking a third-party site/product/company/project/whatever is part of the official open source project or has official approval,which has been a problem in the past when some companies have used the trademark in inappropriate ways (in their logo, etc).

Thanks for the clarification, Jane!

Overall, I think it's a good draft. Though, with the current wording, it's not terribly obvious that the WPF reserves the right to make exceptions - and, fair warning: expect to take a considerable amount of flak regarding those exceptions (especially Automattic/wordpress.com being "grandfathered"). It pretty much gives ammunition to those who would argue that Matt is hypocritical about making money off of WordPress, while working to prevent others from doing so.

Hopefully you know where I stand (it's WPF's Trademark, and they can set whatever policy they want). I just foresee a PR nightmare over that "non-commercial in nature" clause.

Anyway, I see there are 64 unassigned Themes in the review queue. Back to more productive things (and NFL opening night) for me! ;)

[Ryan]

I guess having donated the WordPress trademark to the foundation gives Automattic extra rights to use it itself for commercial purposes. It could have been part of the agreement to transfer it perhaps.

From a practical viewpoint, this policy makes zero real-world difference, but it will be handy to have somewhere to point violators to so that they are aware of precisely what they are and aren't allowed to do with the name/logo.

[Ryan]

... I believe that wordpress.com is basically grandfathered, and holds an exclusive commercial license or something like that.

I just found a comment from Matt regarding this:
http://ma.tt/2010/09/wordpress-trade...comment-485262

[chipbennett]

Erm, why was my original thread closed?

EDIT by Ryan: This is merged from a separate thread.

[Ryan]

No idea. Perhaps a bug in the system?

If Jeff doesn't reply here shortly I'll unlock it as there's no mention of a reason from any of the moderators/admin.

I don't think Andrea is aware of why it is locked either as she is the one who point me in the direction of this thread.

[chipbennett]

No idea. Perhaps a bug in the system?

If Jeff doesn't reply here shortly I'll unlock it as there's no mention of a reason from any of the moderators/admin.

I don't think Andrea is aware of why it is locked either as she is the one who point me in the direction of this thread.

Strange bug, indeed.

Glad to hear it wasn't intentional, as I think it will be a valid discussion point going forward.

Thanks for looking into it for me. :)

[Ryan]

Andrea agreed that it looks like an accident/error too, so I've reopened it and merged the two threads.

[andreasnrb]

Andy Beard has a good write up on the subject http://andybeard.eu/3150/warning-wor...has-teeth.html