8 Comments

  1. Peter Cralen (@PeterCralen)

    So it happened at the 33 minute … Thank you Jeff for this detail, it is crucial ;) So I hope we can close this junky topic now ;)

    Report

  2. Matt

    It was actually way before that (from Mark, over Skype in Dec 2012), I just hadn’t looked into it personally and had basically forgotten about it before Siobhan brought it up.

    Report

  3. Tom

    I’m not sure what the implication of this post is?

    It seems you’re saying Matt brought the domain thesis.com because he knew thesis wasn’t under GPL?

    Does that in anyway make it justified?

    We should totally have the discussion about the fact that Chris Pearson is once again going against GPL. And it’s frankly disgusting. (He’s still displaying his “patent-pending color scheme picker” messaging on his sales page for thesis, which is also down right wrong.)

    But you also don’t have to be Matt’s cheerleader and try to make him out to be justified The way he’s reopened the discussion around people violating gpl is nothing more then bullying.

    Report

  4. Andreas Nurbo

    I’m just curious why this even matters? If anything the interesting stuff in the interviews is that not all top dogs in WP agree with how Matt views the GPL but yet Matts view is the only one that matters. Also there is no legal basis for the FSF interpretation of the GPL they just want to GPL everything, they are a lobbyorganisation afterall. Its like asking the drug companies etc if people should be allowed to import medicine(its much cheaper) back into the USA of course they would say no (Im just assuming this).

    Report

  5. Dave Navarro, Jr.

    If you go out into the real world, you’ll see that most people who are aware of what happened believe that what Matt and Automattic did was underhanded and unethical. Circumstances don’t matter, actual facts really don’t matter, it’s all perception and the perception is that Pearson is wrong and Matt/Automattic are wrong. They could have taken the high road, but they chose not to. On the internet, the rule is “the last one to be wrong is the wrong one”. So unless Pearson further bungles things, he wins in the PR department to the average layman. Quite honestly, I’d sell the domain to Pearson for what they paid for it and be done with the whole thing. They look like they “saw the light” and get back positive vibes, Pearson looks like more of an ass, and WP Tavern can get back to reporting on WordPress (or who Matt is dating if they wanna continue down the tabloid route).

    Report

  6. leokoo

    The issue that Matt pointed out wasn’t just one of GPL, but the very fact that Pearson tried patenting common WP features (which should not be patentable).

    But it can be done by unethical people using lose wordings to describe a prior art. And in the long run, Pearson (and whoever who follows what he is doing), and then use these patents to punish regular WordPress users and commercial WordPress businesses. Which is the main issue here.

    If you are sued by Pearson’s patent (that is assuming he doesn’t try and get more), would you be able to defend yourself in court?

    That’s why I fully agree to Matt’s decision to buy over thesis.com :) Let’s put people like Pearson out of business. And if needed, sue him for profiteering and abusing the USPTO with vague patent applications.

    Report

    • Adam

      If the issue is that Pearson tried patenting something for which there is prior art… who cares? There are thousands of such attempts going on all the time, I’m sure.

      If there is nothing novel in the patent, and its just a description of something that has been going on for a long time, then the application is entirely defeasible.

      The correct solution is not to take the law into your own hands and bully someone into insolvency or what have you. The correct, moral and ethical solution is to fight the patent, or ignore it and let Pearson defend his patent (as is required) and have it revoked at that point. I highly doubt that such an action would be much more than what has already been spent.

      Every week it seems there is some anti-bullying hoo-ha in the news or trade publications. Whether its your local Pink Shirt Day or the equivalent or the constant hand wringing (and finger pointing) about whether or not this Conference or that *Camp is sufficiently inclusive (either in speaker selection or in providing friendly, alcohol-free places for networking, or what have you), we are constantly telling one another to stop being a$$-hats.

      What I have learned from the defence of Matt’s actions (which I believe are reprehensible as presented) is that it not about whether or not you are an a$$-hat, its whether or not you’re the right type of a$$-hat.

      This is not a new lesson for me, but it always amazes how willfully blind people can be.

      Report

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: