From reviewing the code, this is not "attribution" in the sense of "here's who wrote this code" but specifically and literally an partner code.. aka an affiliate code or what we'd normally call "a setting"
As GPL'd software, they cannot prevent people from modifying this code and - if they do - Automattic's only counter is to complain about it.
Further, since it's a revenue-generating code, it should be disclosed in the README, etc of the plugin and changeable via the Admin. It doesn't appear either is true.
Ref: https://github.com/woocommerce/woocommerce-gateway-stripe/pu...
To the foundation? Ok, then work with them to create a mirror and share the load. Even publicly shamed them into doing so.
Do what's good for the community and product rather than engaging in this embarrassing spat.
Please correct me if I’m wrong here (in any way).
Not a lawyer, but talked about it at length with a trademark attorney when having to defend over the years. It was conveyed that if we aren't willing to legally defend a mark, we could potentially lose it.
It's an interesting take, given that the three board members of the WordPress Foundation are Matt and a ... managing partner of a PE firm (the third is a retired coder, I believe).
"We offer WordPress hosting" is a perfectly legal thing for people to say if they actually offer WordPress hosting, and no amount of trademarks can prevent that. This is specifically called out to try to avoid trademark fuckery.
Sure, everyone refers to the "Big Game" versus the "Super Bowl", but that's largely because the NFL can afford more lawyers than they can, and it's not worth the fight.
A claim I've heard is that the for-profit company has the exclusive commercial license (along with the right to grant sub-licenses).
That sounds about right, and is what's written on the WordPress Foundation's trademark page [1]:
> If you would like to use the WordPress trademark commercially, please contact Automattic, they have the exclusive license. Their only sub-licensee is Newfold.
I read something different [2] while reading up on this whole debacle:
> The WordPress Foundation was launched in January 2010. Automattic transferred the trademarks later that year in September. As part of the transfer, Automattic was granted use of WordPress for WordPress.com, but not for any future domains. Matt was granted a license for WordPress.org and WordPress.net.
I wonder if something changed along the way.
[1] https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/
[2] https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-wordpress-foundation/
a) the nonprofit owns a trademark
b) gave an exclusive license with right to sublicense to a for-profit
c) which appears to be run by the same person
d) who is demanding of a competitor to sublicense the trademark
e) paying the money to the for-profit, not the nonprofit
f) when it's not clear that the competitor is infringing on the trademark in the first place.
The litigation here is not likely to go Wordpress or Automattic's way, I think.
And referring to that transfer as "very above board" makes it sound like you're talking about the same thing as the commenter above when in fact you're talking about different things. Because however gracious you find that decision to be, that's a different subject than whether it's above board to, subsequently commingle those responsibilities. And whether or not you feel it's practical, in some sense, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with anything. Either Automatic has The authority to collect licensing payments on behalf of WordPress or they don't and that should be reflected in a charter or something, somewhere.
I don't think referencing the history of Automatic previously owning the trademark has anything to do with anything in this context.
But a cursory glance at Google results for "Wordpress hosting", "woocommerce hosting", or "managed wordpress hosting" will lead you to hundreds of results from a plethora of web hosting companies that have been doing this, many for more than a decade.
The Wordpress Foundation (that owns the "Wordpress" trademark) has not taken any legal action against any of these companies for precisely the same use it's accusing WPEngine of. A judge could well rule that they have not defended their trademark and this claim holds no water.
Which turned out to be blatantly false, quelle surprise
I'm currently asking @photomatt elsewhere what his plans are to help others lift the load from wp.org by way of supporting alternate plugin/theme repositories. I'll keep you posted.