Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    Secure Custom Fields by WordPress.org

    (wordpress.org)
    172 points ValentineC | 11 comments | 12 Oct 24 18:38 UTC | HN request time: 1.318s | source | bottom
    1. mirzap ◴[12 Oct 24 19:32 UTC] No.41821754[source]▶
    Pathetic. Matt banned one of the most popular WordPress plugins. Then, he forked the code and hosted it on WP.org, which is against the Terms of Service. He also hosted it in the plugin directory on the same path as ACF, stealing its SEO traffic. Wow!

    Matt's state of mind is clearly not good. If I were an investor in WordPress, I would start thinking about cutting my losses. WordPress will not recover from this self-inflicted destruction

    *Update* Oh, it's worse than that. He just renamed the ACF to SCF and claimed all the installations and reviews from ACF. I still can't believe this happened. This can't be legal!

    replies(1): >>41822198 #
    2. photomatt ◴[12 Oct 24 20:21 UTC] No.41822198[source]▶
    Have you read the GPL?
    replies(8): >>41822224 #>>41822230 #>>41822245 #>>41822270 #>>41822711 #>>41823254 #>>41823381 #>>41827030 #
    3. Sebguer ◴[12 Oct 24 20:23 UTC] No.41822224[source]▶
    Eventually you are going to have to confront that the distance between 'technical correctness' and 'moral correctness' is vaster than you apparently think it is.
    4. DonnieBurger ◴[12 Oct 24 20:24 UTC] No.41822230[source]▶
    Parent does not mention GPL, nor is this a GPL issue. It's about the takeover of an existing plugin and it's reviews/installs.
    replies(1): >>41823410 #
    5. ◴[12 Oct 24 20:25 UTC] No.41822245[source]▶
    6. kristofferR ◴[12 Oct 24 21:18 UTC] No.41822711[source]▶
    What kind of response is that? Does that mean you approve of sites like GPLDL then?
    7. ◴[12 Oct 24 22:25 UTC] No.41823254[source]▶
    8. rpgbr ◴[12 Oct 24 22:45 UTC] No.41823381[source]▶
    The problem isn’t GPL or code, it’s a trademark and trusting issue.
    9. ankleturtle ◴[12 Oct 24 22:49 UTC] No.41823410{3}[source]▶
    I am not a lawyer, but I am really curious if this would amount to tortious interference.
    10. chx ◴[13 Oct 24 11:24 UTC] No.41827030[source]▶
    Have you read https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/advanced-custom-9832116... and https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/acf-98321135.html ?
    replies(1): >>41833394 #
    11. s1ds ◴[14 Oct 24 01:37 UTC] No.41833394{3}[source]▶
    Have you read them? Both are in pending status and not registered. "Advanced Custom Fields" most recent update before a last minute extension to respond to final notice was for: "Merely Descriptive Refusal - Registration is refused because the applied-for mark merely describes the function of applicant’s goods and/or services."

    So far even USPTO attorneys think it's a generic mark not worthy of being registered: https://tsdr.uspto.gov/documentviewer?caseId=sn98321164&docI...