They should be legally required to refund full purchase price plus interest in every case. If there are legal fees to get compliance, multiply that plus the refund by five.

You know the fact that you need 4 alarms is probably because the caffeine kills your sleep quality right?

Their fundamentals are too strong. They have market dominance with extremely steady technological progress against really bad competition. LLMs aren’t going to disappear when the shitty overpromising bubble pops. Generative AI isn’t going anywhere. Any of the thousands of other uses for their raw power are still there. They’ll just be at the ground floor of whatever the next math heavy hype cycle is, just like they were with crypto and LLMs, because cuda is the best way to get shit done, whether what you’re doing is useful or trash.

Nvidia isn’t going to be holding any bag. They’re selling through what they make, and LLMs are just one of many uses for the massively parallel math they’re at the forefront of. At most they have to bring pricing down, but they don’t own the fab, so if demand did drop (which isn’t really all that likely), their costs will go down too. They have contracts in terms of volume and price, but they’re not near long term enough to do them more than a blip, and all their investment in developing architecture/tooling has value well outside of LLM nonsense.

A disclaimer absolutely doesn’t make it not trademark infringement. It doesn’t even make a dent.

No, it’s not. They’re literally advertising the performance of their altered code.

You keep parroting nominative use and ignoring that your definition of nominative use is “as the trademark owner uses it”, and that there’s no legitimate reading of any of that material that doesn’t very blatantly imply endorsement, which is always trademark infringement.

No, there isn’t. You’re just repeating incorrect information.

The second you change how a project works in any way in any context, it is no longer the same product and you are not entitled to use their trademark to reference it.

Functionally, any scenario where there’s any room at all for brand confusion or implied endorsement is trademark infringement. But even if you buy the outrageous lie that what they were doing was somehow ambiguous, as soon as they were contacted and told that their use was unacceptable, that ambiguity goes away.

There is no debate.

Nominative fair use has no relevance to a separate, competing product. Nominative fair use gives you permission to use the term in the exact manner they do and no more. Their notice that your version is not “WordPress”, in and of itself, completely nullifies the argument.

“You can’t put it on the internet anywhere in the world because we own the rights in one country” is some deranged bullshit.

As much as I don’t like framework spam, especially when a lot of them are bloated and insecure or need bloated and insecure plugins/extentsions/whatever to do basic things, I have less desire than that to go to C.

If people post lies about trademark rights multiple places, they should be responded to multiple places.

GPL doesn’t give you any rights to trademarks.

I’m sure they use the reliability of your inputs for known images to determine whether to use your input to train unknown images.

It’s all good.

I’ll just call it a deepfake and get on with my life.

Because a well done, complete code project benefits more from continued small additions than a well constructed, complete story.

There is no “enough”. Any modification at all takes their permission to use their trademark.

Most allow you to do so within reasonable guidelines, but that only gives you the benefit of the doubt if it’s ambiguous. As soon as they tell you that you don’t have permission to use their trademark on your altered version, you can’t use it.

No, they can’t, because no, it isn’t. That’s what trademarks are for. You can’t use a trademarked name to refer to your competing product.

Open source projects are generally permissive in terms of people repackaging their code for distribution for different platforms within reasonable guidelines, but even that is a sufficient change that they aren’t obligated to allow their trademarks to be used that way.

It is no longer Wordpress once it’s modified. That’s what trademark is for.

They explicitly call their engine Wordpress more than once in those examples. You cannot do that.

They’re very obviously using the trademark in a manner that implies endorsement.

That is absolutely trademark infringement.

Yeah, open source licenses don’t entitle you to use trademarks.

This looks pretty bad to me.