Interesting UDRP post for thesis.com

[martin-s]

Have a read here:
http://www.pearsonified.com/2015/07/truth-about-thesis-com.php

 

[Adam H]

Thanks for the link, i don't think ive read something that long with a load of comments in 15 years but was insightful enough keep me interested.

 

[foz]

So he watched someone else buy the domain, not very bright.

It's not worth that mentality backfired.

 

[martin-s]

I think a near $40k opening offer was pretty credible to be honest. But either way, the eventual buyer *is* using the domain abusively and the UDRP decision is crazy.

 

[tifosi]

Interesting read, especially the comments.

For those who know me as a dev they'll also know my "love, hate" relationship with WordPress. From a purist point of view it is a horrible throwback to php4 and early pre-oop php5. The codebase is shitty at best. That being said, the admin interface is highly usable, but that's more based on it's javascript. Working with WordPress at times is like having your brain sucked out with a straw!

For some background, for those not involved in PHP at the turn of the century, there needs to be some context set over the overbearing ego of MattM & automattic and their GPL crusade.

MattM's "moral highground" is nothing of the sort. WordPress when forked from B2 after that project was abandoned used a very good database abstraction model I had some v.minor involvement in called ezSQL. This in itself was GPL licenced, and as early WordPress used this as it's core HAD to be itself GPL licenced. The wpdb db object is based on fork of this. He/they might have an appreciation & support for GPL, but that it was an option to go down that route was NOT the case.

I refuse to be part of the "WordPress community" even through I release WordPress stuff under GPL and continue to do so. I've logged bugs through the trac system & had enhancements approved & included in WP4. That's as far as it goes. Won't see me at any WordCamps!

 

[BeachLife]

Is there no appeal process under UDRP? It's nonsensical that the Respondent admitted the redirect, that the panel could have tested and seen the redirect, but that they rejected the claim as the Claimamt didn't provide proof of the redirect!