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.
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."
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.
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.
I am not a lawyer, but I am really curious if this would amount to tortious interference.
The problem isn’t GPL or code, it’s a trademark and trusting issue.
What kind of response is that? Does that mean you approve of sites like GPLDL then?
Have you read https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/advanced-custom-9832116... and https://trademarks.justia.com/983/21/acf-98321135.html ?
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...
[flagged]