←back to thread

465 points impish9208 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.27s | source
Show context
gpm ◴[] No.42669032[source]
Huh, the injunction against "blocking, disabling, or interfering with WPEngine’s and/or its employees’, users’, customers’, or partners’ (hereinafter “WPEngine and Related Entities”) access to wordpress.org;" [0] is still in effect right? There's nothing on the docket saying otherwise...

These contributors are "partners" under the common meaning of the word right? After all the tweet [1] that Matt links to from his own blog post [2] says

> We are committed to working with Joost, Karim, and other respected voices in the community to ensure WordPress’s future is stronger than ever.

That sounds like a partnership to me.

[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.43...

[1] https://x.com/wpengine/status/1870242287218790849

[2] https://wordpress.org/news/2025/01/jkpress/

replies(2): >>42669104 #>>42669177 #
andypants ◴[] No.42669177[source]
> with WPEngine’s

"WPEngine's" being key here. Some of the banned people are wordpress contributors, unrelated to WPE. The other banned people are not contributors at all and seemingly the only reason they were banned is that matt is angry at their tweets.

replies(1): >>42669217 #
gpm ◴[] No.42669217[source]
You can't cut "WPEngine’s" off from the disjunctive that follows.

> and/or its employees’, users’, customers’, or partners’

That clause is why I discussed the evidence that the people banned seem to me to fall under the meaning of the word partners.

replies(3): >>42669582 #>>42669886 #>>42674258 #
1. atkailash ◴[] No.42669582[source]
Parters involved in WPEngine so yes, you can cut it off. If they aren’t working on that specifically it’s irrelevant if they’re partners on a separate project, even if it’s similar