Deleted member 752298 Legality

SuperMIC said:

Unless otherwise specified, this is the only conclusions we can come out

Click to expand...

I shared a link with the courts verdict last month where you can read more about the claims.

Deleted member 752298 said:

I shared a link with the courts verdict last month where you can read more about the claims.

Click to expand...

Yeah I saw this when you published it, thank you for that. It's the rendered decision which says not much about the case, only the judge's conclusion.
I was referring to when it all started, but yeah now we know a little more but we're still in the dark in regards to WHAT IS the exact CLAIM from the other party.

Its very confusing, Automatic (WordPress) have just ripped off the ACF plugin (Advanced Custom Fields) and renamed it Secure Custom Fields.

I read that coders have gone through the program to find that its an exact match except the registering bit (I love using technical terms!) and the code stating that its called AFC.

Yet Automatic was against Festinger doing this, yet they have just done it themselves!

wpthemesandplugins said:

Yet Automatic was against Festinger doing this, yet they have just done it themselves!

Click to expand...

Doing what?

SuperMIC said:

Doing what?

Click to expand...

Basically taking someone else's plugin and redistributing it, which is similar to what Festinger does.

wpthemesandplugins said:

Basically taking someone else's plugin and redistributing it, which is similar to what Festinger does.

Click to expand...

Yeah, and this is basically what GPL2, which the license for WordPress, is all about and all themes and plugins to that platform MUST be released under the same GPL2 license, according to Matt himself. To start with:
GPL2
1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)
see it all here: https:// http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Once you read it all, unless you have a copy of the claim it is hard to grasp what they base their claim on, it could be (I'm not implying any thing) a small technicality related to how Deleted member 752298 operates in a certain way that would then not fit the license anymore, something we would not necessarily be able to see on the frontend, it's even possible that Matt is totally wrong in his approach in regards to his own interpretation of the license which he did not created himself either. In my opinion the 'game' AutoMATTic has started playing relatively recently is about to backfire in his own face in a way or another and sooner than he might think. He's not holding GPL licensing monopoly. And on a personal feeling, and for many reasons as absing of his position and power to go after small folks and bro as Festy, I think this Matt guy is a PURE a..hole ...

Deleted member 752298 said:

I shared a link with the courts verdict last month where you can read more about the claims.

Click to expand...

Hey Festinger, any updates on the comeback, we badly need some updates

Deleted member 752298 said:

I shared a link with the courts verdict last month where you can read more about the claims.

Click to expand...

What is update on November hearing?

Businesses like Deleted member 752298, which provide access to premium content without proper licensing, often operate in a gray area legally and risk facing legal action from copyright holders, such as theme or plugin authors. If they don't have the proper permissions, they could be sued for copyright infringement.