I'm copy editing WordPress' Terms of Service to my own web hosting service, and I wonder what does this mean:
If these terms and conditions are considered an offer by Automattic,(By the way, is it okay to ask such questions here? There might be other parts of WordPress' TOS that I don't understand, and would like to ask about. If this is the wrong place, perhaps you know somewhere else where I could ask?)
acceptance is expressly limited to these terms.
Google hasn't been helpful — instead I find 100 000 other copies of WordPress' TOS.
Please please please don't just bulk copy (and presumably) edit somebody else's TOS and apply it to your own company. You've already demonstrated that you don't understand at least one very important clause, and there's a good chance that you don't understand other clauses (even if you think you do) - the result of this could be disastrous.
Get a lawyer to do this, or better yet, write a plain language TOS instead of something full lof pseudo legal mumbo jumbo which does nothing to actually help the provider or the user, except win by obfuscation/obscurity.
You could also check out services such as SnapTerms.com to make this easier.
It is referring to the formation of a Contract, which generally requires five things including Offer and Acceptance. I assume they don't want to be bound in Contract, except under circumstances that they stipulate.
It's actually a hard question, even for someone with a legal background like myself. Offer and acceptance follow the "mirror rule" as the wikipedia page you've found reports, so it's not like you can send an email to Wordpress and add stuff. That language seems to imply the possibility of an exception to this rule, although the only exception I know regards physical goods (http://www.utsa.edu/purchasing/contracts/definition.cfm ) so it doesn't make sense for a service provider like Wordpress. I might be missing some recent case law that made the counsels of Automattic worry about this possibility.
Another peculiar part of the Wordpress ToS is that conditional at the beginning: nowadays terms of service are considered contractually binding most of the times.
Feel free to post this question and any other question you might have on that document on Docracy as maybe there are some Internet-Law focused attorneys who have a better idea.