Static Newsabout
openplatypus | 327 comments

philsquared_|next|

The problem I have with this is simple and has to do with the lack of separation of entities.

Automattic is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.com is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation IS NOT a competitor with WPEngine.

There is a dispute between Automattic and WPEngine. The resources of Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation should not be leverage in this dispute.

The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.

It is very poor taste and changes the perspective of the product. Instead of a professional entity who will engage professionally it is now a form of leverage that a single person could wield against anyone who crosses them.

To be clear these same exact actions can be taken against anyone who insults one individual. This look is embarrassing.


tomphoolery|parent|next|

> The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.

There was never a boundary in the first place if it's the same guy doing both things. WordPress has always had this veneer of "community-driven", which is what they hide behind when people get their sites exploited, but Automattic really holds all the keys here. Just because Matt replies with an `@wordpress.org` email vs. an `@wordpress.com` email doesn't mean he's a different person all of a sudden.


datahack|root|parent|next|

If that’s the case, I’d like to hear from Matt about this. I’ve known him for years, and I don’t think he is unaware of conflicts like these. In fact I’ve seen him be deeply thoughtful about complex problems in the past. He’s not perfect (who is?), but he really does try.

Given that he has been pretty reasonable about stuff like this in the past, I don’t find myself inclined to ascribe bad intent until I hear from him personally.

Seems like the kind of situation where only one person can answer.

Am I off?


swyx|root|parent|next|

> Given that he has been pretty reasonable about stuff like this in the past, I don’t find myself inclined to ascribe bad intent until I hear from him personally.

there is a level of actions that are so bad that intent doesnt actually matter anymore. i would say matt has crossed that line here.


miningape|root|parent|prev|next|

ThePrimeagen just did an interview with him, the video is also available on youtube now too.

Not the best interview IMO since prime didn't have much time to prepare questions / topics, and so he is very much "firing from the hip" but you'll get to hear matt go into detail about this topic.


SSLy|root|parent|prev|next|

Compare and contrast with the OpenAI old board vs sama drama the other day. And the end result of non-profit being steered by the for-profit entity.

forgetfreeman|root|parent|next|

You could also draw parallels from Drupal's death spiral that kicked off when (at the behest of corporate clients) Aquia decided to pivot to "large core" architecture and tossed the bulk of the community overboard in the process.

sjs382|parent|prev|next|

> The problem I have with this is simple and has to do with the lack of separation of entities. > Automattic is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.com is a competitor with WPEngine. Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation IS NOT a competitor with WPEngine.

> There is a dispute between Automattic and WPEngine. The resources of Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation should not be leverage in this dispute.

> The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.

Can an action like this put the WordPress Foundation's 501c(3) at risk?

And if so, how likely is it to actually become a legal problem?


0cf8612b2e1e|root|parent|next|

Were it to go to trial, legal discovery would be fun. How many internal conversations were had about, “Those jerks at WPEngine are eating our lunch”. Rather than, “I am truly concerned about how the trademark is being confused by this one specific successful company. Whatever can we do?”

otterley|root|parent|next|

Civil discovery isn’t a public process. The parties don’t get to share what they discovered with the public, and sensitive information is frequently redacted before documents are provided to the opposing party.

skissane|root|parent|next|

> The parties don’t get to share what they discovered with the public,

Not directly, but they can enter it as evidence into the lawsuit, in which case it gets publicly released unless the other side can convince the judge to seal it. Absolutely parties try to get embarrassing information exposed to the media in this way. They only can do that if it is plausibly relevant to the subject matter of the lawsuit-but internal conversations in which executives are attacking the company suing them very likely are.


otterley|root|parent|next|

> in which case it gets publicly released unless the other side can convince the judge to seal it.

Motions to seal evidence are routinely granted by courts in civil matters. Parties can try to get embarrassing information entered into the public record, but they have to convince a judge, and that’s often an uphill battle. Courts don’t like to be used as a tool for private parties to air the others’ dirty laundry.


0cf8612b2e1e|root|parent|prev|next|

I was more thinking that this would be government intervention regarding the non-profit status. Discovery would still be secret, but probably a smoking gun there that the organization is not independent of the commercial entity.

As far as I am aware, the WP.org”s (or is it the foundation?) actions are distasteful, but they are allowed to ban whomever they like.


FireBeyond|root|parent|prev|next|

> The parties don’t get to share what they discovered with the public

Well certainly.

> and sensitive information is frequently redacted before documents are provided to the opposing party.

In this case that kind of sensitive information absolutely wouldn't be able to be redacted (successfully) because those conversations would be entirely germane.


ttul|root|parent|prev|next|

I kind of want discovery to happen in this situation.

snowwrestler|root|parent|prev|next|

WP Engine could file a complaint with the IRS about tax exempt status abuse. But that would be a heck of an escalation, and even more damaging to the WordPress ecosystem than Matt’s ridiculous actions so far.

But it wouldn’t have to be them. Any U.S. citizen can file such a complaint, even anonymously. That said, it would likely not be pursued by the IRS unless it was written based on detailed accurate knowledge of tax exempt regulations, and clear proof of abuse.


TheNewsIsHere|root|parent|next|

There is a standard, numbered IRS form for this exact purpose. Having once drafted a copy once, they do indeed require you to submit some kind of narrative and supporting documentation that there is some kind of impropriety in relation to their particular tax exempt status.

It’s not clear to me that WordPress.org has done that. I think it’s perfectly fair to ask WP Engine to pay WordPress.org some kind of fair compensation for the infrastructure demands they induce.


ensignavenger|root|parent|next|

Sure, if they put the same requirements to pay on everyone. But specifically targeting one major competitor to the for profit company that is controlled by the same person who controls the nonprofit?

That gets into a pretty.sticky situation real quick.


RandomThoughts3|root|parent|next|

Does it?

The fundamental question is: is the non profit going outside the boundary of its status?

I’m not fully convinced that’s the case even in the context of the for profit disagreements with its competitor.


mthoms|root|parent|prev|next|

That's just it. WPEngine are not being asked to pay WordPress.org. They are being asked to pay Automattic.

mplewis|root|parent|prev|next|

Why is this standard being applied to only one user, and a competitor at that?

larodi|parent|prev|next|

Wordpress is past its prime. A nice api based platform will replace it very fast. The whole wp concept is wrong from 2024 perspective, cause much of it is API calls from web already and not PHP/html loads.

They will try to move towards enterprise infrastructure with v7 but will probably fail as their (third party) devs are not that good.

I’ve actually seen a lot of PHP code for Wordpress, wrote some, and the only way to get it right today is to make use of a GPT, cause their (WP’s) internals are so many and so weird and inconsistent sometimes.


davidandgoliath|parent|prev|next|

Gets even more wild when you consider Automattic invested in WP Engine's Series A in 2011, despite all this insidious trademark abuse commencing in 2010.

No chance this is personal.


flutas|parent|prev|next|

> The resources of Wordpress.org and the Wordpress Foundation should not be leverage in this dispute.

I honestly wonder if it crosses any legal boundaries. From what I can tell, it's essentially the non-profit acting on commands from the for-profit.

Basically the equivalent in my mind to a "in-kind donation".


that_guy_iain|root|parent|next|

To me, I think it's more that it shows they're one entity and then it is a massive issue about the tax write offs Automattic will have been claiming for years. But, I guess we'll see because WP Engine is going to come out swinging on this. They have to.

There is also the fact that WP Engine sponsored a WordPress Foundation event and then was kicked out of it because of this dispute. The WordPress foundation accepted 75k knowing what WP Engine was doing and then didn't honour the deal.


safety1st|root|parent|next|

This is also the most shocking thing to me, that Matt seems to be very blasé about using Automattic and the foundation more or less interchangeably and in a very public way to further his goals. So other than the tax writeoffs what was the point of creating the foundation? Where is this guy's legal counsel? Surely they have to be screaming their heads off right now because from the outside every indication now is that the Foundation is really just an extension of Automattic that exists to dodge taxes and whether it is claiming its nonprofit status legally is now becoming a question mark. This is so far for Matt to have fallen and taken WordPress with him

kgwgk|root|parent|prev|next|

If the non-profit is doing something for the benefit of the for-profit it’s the reverse of a donation - unless you really meant a “donation” from the foundation to the company.

rgbrenner|parent|prev|next|

this dispute is with wordpress though. “wordpress” is not a generic term. if i called my company “MSengine”, and described it as “the most trusted microsoft platform” (a phrase i copied straight from wpengine.com)… i would get a cease and desist almost immediately.

even in the open source community, there are dozens (probably more) linux distros that have been told by ubuntu to rename their projects from “ubuntu x” to something else, for example. there are no trademark grants contained in the gpl or any of the popular open source licenses.

the only mystery is why they’ve waited so long to enforce their trademark.. but matt says they’ve been working on a deal “for a while”.. and i guess we’ll have to wait until the court case to see what that means.


kadoban|root|parent|next|

The WordPress trademark guides say explicitly that "WP" is allowed to be used by others. Several other parts of the wording the WP Engine uses are also explicitly allowed. So your whole first two paragraphs are mistaken.

WillPostForFood|root|parent|next|

It also explicitly says you can't use "Wordpress" in your product names, and WP Engine is doing that. I thought it might be common, but the other big providers do not use WordPress in their product names.

Essential Wordpress

Core Wordpress

Enterprise Wordpress

https://wpengine.com/plans/


brianfryer|root|parent|next|

> you can't use "Wordpress" in your product names, and WP Engine is doing that

WP Engine is explicitly not doing that.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYPsyoSbwAACO7X?format=jpg&name=...


WillPostForFood|root|parent|next|

If you are selling "Core Wordpress" WP Engine is explicitly naming a product using "Wordpress". If it was "Core WP" that would be fine.

immibis|root|parent|prev|next|

Probably (the trademark equivalent of) fair use, because WordPress is what they are selling. If I have a basket of windows disks to sell, I can write Microsoft Windows on my price list because the thing I'm selling is called that.

orra|root|parent|next|

This analogy came up recently when discussing Elasticsearch. It's flawed.

Free and open source software does not, and has never, required giving up trademark rights. I think the GPLv3 is even explicit about this.

In the Windows case it's fair use of the trademark because you're reselling something you previously bought. That's not applicable here.

WordPress is open source software, but a hosting service has a variety of characteristics unrelated to the nominal software. Besides, WP Engine are disabling key features of the product: of course that's misleading.


ensignavenger|root|parent|prev|next|

Looks like those are just headings, not product names.

pests|root|parent|next|

Wut? In what are are those not product names? Any reasonable person would assume so.

zo1|root|parent|prev|next|

And yet, here is Godaddy doing the same thing:

https://www.godaddy.com/en-ph/hosting/wordpress-hosting

Or a recent hosting provider I interacted with in a 3rd world country:

https://client.absolutehosting.co.za/store/wordpress-hosting

Come now, this seems to be a huge abuse of "trademark" of a term. Wordpress may be open source, but having the actual name of the "Opensource" thing be trademarked by a non-profit (that's also who-knows-how-much controlled by a for-profit entity) seems like such a dick move. I'm gonna start adding it to my list... OpenAI, Mozilla Foundation, Wordpress.

Edit. Side note:

I looked up the Linux trademark usage guidelines. Looks like half the internet is infringing on this one too if you squint. So maybe this all boils down to a case of "Don't be a jerk" that some entities adhere to when it comes to protecting their trademark, whilst others like Automattic use it to bully competitors.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/trademark-usage


WillPostForFood|root|parent|next|

Or it's WP Engine being a jerk, and this is just a way to put some pressure on them.

Look at it this way - WordPress is the #1 platform for websites. It is a free, Open-source, and huge asset to the community. Are you going to shit on the guys who made it and gave it away because you have some sympathy for some overpriced, hosting company?

If the Wordpress team disappeared, it would be a tragedy. If WP Engine disappeared it would be nothing.


Marsymars|root|parent|prev|next|

> Wordpress may be open source, but having the actual name of the "Opensource" thing be trademarked by a non-profit (that's also who-knows-how-much controlled by a for-profit entity) seems like such a dick move.

I get the "ick" factor here, but there doesn't really seem to be a better alternative. If "OpenSourceWare" isn't trademarked by non-profit "OpenSourceSoft", the options are either a) no trademark, and it's a free-for-all where the biggest marketing budget and SEO teams get the biggest return on mindshare and search results or b) Oracle gets the trademark and nobody else is allowed to use it.


eurleif|root|parent|prev|next|

The page you linked applies to trademarks owned by the Linux Foundation. The Linux trademark is actually owned by Linus Torvalds, not by the Linux Foundation; and different rules apply to it, as your link notes.

>For information regarding the Linux trademark, owned by Linus Torvalds, please see the Linux Mark Institute (administered by The Linux Foundation). Your use of the Linux trademark must be in accordance with the Linux Mark Institute’s policy.

Which links to this page: https://www.linuxfoundation.org/legal/the-linux-mark


rgbrenner|root|parent|prev|next|

if we’re going by the trademark policy, it also says you can’t use the wordpress name in the name of your project or service.

and arguing that “wp” doesn’t mean “wordpress” and therefore is allowed, is exactly the same as me selling “msengine” for microsoft products, and telling everyone “ms” doesn’t mean microsoft. we all know what it stands for for, and if you weren’t sure, you can jut scan the page and see it’s clearly associated with wordpress. if that’s the basis of the legal defense wpengine wants to make in court, they are truly f’d.


lolinder|root|parent|next|

Up until this dispute the WordPress trademark policy contained this:

> The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit.

Now it's been updated to say this:

> The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress.

It's pretty clear that WP Engine has been in compliance with the old trademark policy and that the new one is acknowledging that they don't have legal standing to demand anything about the WP abbreviation (not least because they waited so long to complain about the usage) so they're instead inserting a petulant and childish slight.

http://web.archive.org/web/20240101165105/https://wordpressf...


ok_dad|root|parent|prev|next|

> The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks

Straight from the Wordpress trademark page that was just recently changed to talk shit about a competitor:

https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/


rgbrenner|root|parent|next|

microsoft doesn’t have a trademark on “ms” either. like i said, if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them.

this is going to be just as flimsy of a defense as “mikerowesoft”


kadoban|root|parent|next|

> if wpengine is hoping to go into court and explain that wp is not related to wordpress, while selling wordpress services… i dont think its going to go well for them.

Of course not. They will (if it goes that far) point out that their use of WP is explicitly in line with the trademark holder's public guidance on that exact point.

You can't tell everybody that it's fine to use wording like that and then sue them when they do it.


tapoxi|root|parent|prev|next|

yeah but Wordpress.org explicitly said "using WP is okay". if they turn around and say "no it's not" that's promissory estoppel

patmcc|root|parent|prev|next|

Trademarks are largely (but not exclusively) about preventing consumer confusion. I can offer a course called "Learn how to use Excel like a pro" and not get sued by MS, as long as I'm not making it seem like I'm Microsoft.

Just like DigitalOcean can say "We will rent you an Ubuntu server". We can argue about whether calling something "Wordpress Hosting" or "Hosting a Wordpress site" is different, but I think WP Engine is being perfectly reasonable. "Wordpress Hosting" is as generic as Kleenex and Xerox at this point.


neom|root|parent|next|

I've been thinking about this all week since this WP stuff kicked off. You know what's funny, as far as I know I was the first senior person to have a conversation with Ubuntu about that from the DO side, and as far as I recall it (granted it was a long time ago) it was basically them: "Uhm, you can't do that"- me: "maybe, not sure, but probably better to be friends tho yah?" them: "yah" me: "k" - dunno how it is today, but at least till I left, that was how it remained, always earned a shit load of respect in my book, not sure how it'd have gone for us if they decided to really get nasty, but either way, super grateful they didn't, good job Ubuntu people!!!!

mdasen|root|parent|prev|next|

Earlier this month, WordPress explicitly said that their trademark didn't cover "WP"

https://web.archive.org/web/20240901224354/https://wordpress...

The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit.

They changed the wording as of this dispute with WP Engine:

The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks, but please don’t use it in a way that confuses people. For example, many people think WP Engine is “WordPress Engine” and officially associated with WordPress, which it’s not. They have never once even donated to the WordPress Foundation, despite making billions of revenue on top of WordPress.

https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/

Trademarks need to be defended to be valid. If I started a website "YC Hacker News", Y Combinator would need to defend their trademark (if they think they have one over "YC Hacker News") or the fact that I'm using "YC Hacker News" means they don't have a trademark over that. WP Engine has been around for over a decade. Automattic and the WordPress foundation didn't have an issue with it for such a long time. If you think someone is infringing on your trademark, you can't just let them use it and come back a decade later and change your mind.

In this case, WordPress has even less argument. If Y Combinator said "you can use 'YC' and 'Hacker News' in any way you see fit," they couldn't later come back and say "nooooo, YC sounds like Y Combinator and people get confused!" The WordPress Foundation explicitly allowed everyone to use "WP" in any way they saw fit and disclaimed all trademark over "WP".

Yes, lots of companies/foundations wouldn't have allowed the generic use of "WP" for anyone to use. In this case, they explicitly allowed it and also didn't have a problem with WP Engine's use for well over a decade.

They waited so long to "enforce their trademark" because they don't have a trademark on "WP". They explicitly said so. Now they're trying to create a trademark on a term that's already been in generic use for a while - and explicitly blessed by the WordPress Foundation.

I certainly understand Automattic not liking the fact that they're doing (and paying for) the development work on WordPress while many WordPress users pay WP Engine instead of Automattic/WordPress.com. However, the ship has sailed on claiming that people aren't allowed to use "WP". From where I'm sitting, this feels similar to Elastic, Mongo and other open-source companies disliking it when third parties make money off their open-source code. Of course, WordPress (and Automattic's WordPress.com) wouldn't be the success it is without its open-source nature (just ask Movable Type).


beerandt|root|parent|next|

The whole standard for trademark law is whether it causes confusion in commerce.

Sounds like they might have a not-great ip lawyer.

Your don't have to claim WP to claim it's being marketed as an abbreviation for your trademark, within your market.

I'm not saying it's a winning argument, but better than whatever the legal framing/ posturing of 'WP isn't our TM' is. Bad PR, if not bad legal take.


patmcc|root|parent|next|

Except Wordpress even explicitly suggests using wp in the domain: https://wordpress.org/about/domains/

>>>we ask if you’re going to start a site about WordPress or related to it that you not use “WordPress” in the domain name. Try using “wp” instead, or another variation...


beerandt|root|parent|next|

Yea- same point though. Bad IP advice / strategy.

Don't condone confusing ip policy if you don't want to end up with confusing product names, especially in a resurgence of 'the domain name is the product' of unlimited tlds.


patmcc|root|parent|next|

Definitely bad IP advice, but I think it helps WP Engine to be able to say "look even all the various 'official' Wordpress sites said our name was fine for years".

troyvit|parent|prev|next|

Does Automattic follow wordpress.org's copyright rules? If not then I see the hypocrisy. If so then I don't.

Also it seems wordpress.org kept their resources open to WPEngine until WPEngine sued wordpress.org[1] (not wordpress.com according to the blog post).

So if wordpress.org is getting sued, why would they keep their resources open to the litigant?

[1] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/


lolinder|root|parent|next|

Part of what's so weird about the communication from Matt here is that WordPress.org is not getting sued by anyone—indeed, as far as I can tell WP Engine isn't suing anyone.

All that happened is that WP Engine sent a cease and desist letter to Automattic. WordPress.org misrepresenting the situation is not a good look.


eXpl0it3r|root|parent|prev|next|

The dispute (on the surface) is about trademark not copyright and Automattic has an exclusive license to the trademark.

troyvit|root|parent|next|

Arg, thanks for clarifying that. I misused that term.

gscott|root|parent|prev|next|

I went to WP Engines website and on it they say "Host your WordPress site with the WordPress experts".

It feels confusing to me. The word "the" makes me explicitly think this is Wordpress themselves. They are "the" experts. WP Engine makes it pretty clear they are Wordpress. It is front and center. It has a different meaning than "Host your WordPress site with WordPress experts".


mthoms|root|parent|prev|next|

No-one is being sued (yet) and wordpress.org was not targeted in any way. Matt is being dishonest by repeating this lie anywhere and everywhere. Including on the very page you linked.

WPEngine sent a cease and desist letter addressed to, and targetting only, Matt Mullenweg and his for profit company Automattic. WPEngine are explicitly not targeting wordpress.org in the letter. You can read it here: https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Cease-and-De...

Side note: wp.org is indeed mentioned a couple times in the letter but only when referencing Matt's blog post on the site, the trademark rules, and some technical information around the revisions feature. The "demands" part of the letter address Matt and Automattic exclusively.

Matt knows that an attack on dot org would rally everyone to his side, which is why he is repeating this lie over and over. He is trying to use the community as shield.

This is also (IMHO) why he shut off access to dot org. He wants WPEngine to be seen taking some sort of action against the community.

Matt is constantly shifting between "Matt from Automattic" and "Matt from the WP Foundation" wherever it suits him. It's sickening. He needs to be removed from the foundation immediately.

https://x.com/wpengine/status/1839246341660119287


usaphp|parent|prev|next|

> There is a dispute between Automattic and WPEngine

I think the dispute is in fact between the org and wpengine.

Wpengine doesn’t contribute to the core as much as they promised, and prohibits their employees to do so.


threeseed|root|parent|next|

WPEngine has no obligation to contribute anything.

This is not how open source has or is supposed to work.


austhrow743|root|parent|next|

If they had an informal development in exchange for server access type relationship then that would qualify as some sort of obligation.

Doesn't really have anything to do with open source though. Haven't seen anything about matt/wordpress.org/Automattic trying to prevent them from using open source code.


chiefalchemist|root|parent|prev|next|

Exactly.

Conclusion: This isn't about OSS, it's about money (and power).

Shamelessly, MM has dug himself a hole. If X is any indication, going forward there are few in the community who will trust him. A leader who isn't trusted is no leaser at all. Evidently he realizes this and is stuck doubling down on stupid. Rinse and repeat.

If feel bad for the people who took off work, went to WordCamp US and they keynote they got was a complete turd.


mthoms|root|parent|prev|next|

Incorrect. Dot org is not involved. https://x.com/wpengine/status/1839246341660119287

croes|parent|prev|next|

Isn't that the same what MS does with VS Code?

Open Source so that VS Codium exists but Codium can't access MS's extension store.


ensignavenger|root|parent|next|

VS Code is a product of Microsoft Corp, not a nonorofit foundation. Wordpress.org is a nonprofit foundation, and as a nonprofit, there are rules they have to follow that for profit organizations don't have to.

kelnos|root|parent|next|

Sure, but one of those rules is not "you must allow other entities to use your resources for free".

ensignavenger|root|parent|next|

Sure, but see this comment I made in another thread- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665361

PeterZaitsev|root|parent|prev|next|

If MS Does it, does it make it right ?

nailer|root|parent|next|

Nobody is asserting this.

DannyBee|parent|prev|next|

100% - i raised exactly this issue in the legal claim concerns.

This is a remarkably bad plan from a legal perspective.


that_guy_iain|parent|prev|next|

> The fact that those boundaries are crossed means that anyone who is in competition with Automattic might have any and all ecosystems that Matt has any control over leveraged against them if they upset Matt or Automattic in any way.

I think the fact those boundaries have been crossed will be a massive legal issue for WordPress.org and Automattic since they'll have problems proving they're two separate entities and they will have been using that as a charity as a tax write-off. What is the penalty for tax evasion where you create a fake charity to write tax off of? It's prison, right?


0cf8612b2e1e|root|parent|next|

Not that I think it would happen, but that would some outcome. Attempting to squeeze a competitor only to land in jail for tax fraud.

fluidcruft|parent|prev|next|

Wouldn't that risk be mitigated if WPEngine were more engaged with supporting development?

mplewis|root|parent|next|

What difference would that make?

fluidcruft|root|parent|next|

Because they would be represented in the org. If you choose to stay on the sidelines, should you be surprised to find out your not important to the action?

AlienRobot|parent|prev|next|

Have you read this? https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/23/wp-engine-sends-cease-and-...

>Last week, in a blog post, Mullenweg said WP Engine was contributing 47 hours per week to the “Five for the Future” investment pledge to contribute resources toward the sustained growth of WordPress. Comparatively, he said Automattic was contributing 3,786 hours per week. He acknowledged that while these figures are just a “proxy,” there is a large gap in contribution despite both companies being a similar size and generating around a half billion dollars in revenue.

It seems to me that it isn't a simple "dispute." Automattic is contributing to WP org, but WP Engine isn't. If WP org was completely neutral, they still would have reasons to side with Automattic over WP Engine on this.


munbun|root|parent|next|

That’s really not a fair statement from him given:

1. Based on their github orgs, there is effectively no separation between wordpress.org and Automattic.

2. The core WP contributors trac has a long history of not really being welcome to new contributions. Outside of the design decisions coming from Automattic, third party contributions either die in multi-year deliberations or get directed to the plugin system.

3. The development culture around WP, which largely revolves around the plugin ecosystem - has always trended towards paid plugins over OSS software.


ttul|root|parent|prev|next|

I suspect that his figure on the number of hours is somewhat cooked up and biased. Did he cite a reliable and reasonable source of data that we can all consult to check the veracity of this claim?

ValentineC|root|parent|next|

that_guy_iain|root|parent|prev|next|

The quote says WP Engine is contributing. WP Engine also gave WP.org 75k in sponsorship money, I would say that's a contribution. It's also important to know that after WP.org took that 75k sponsorship money, they kicked them out of the event they sponsored.

lnxg33k1|parent|prev|next|

It's not really crossing the boundaries, in this kind of situations I don't know if people is misunderstanding genuinely or they do the interests of corporations because they have interests in WPEngine. WordPress.org is not going against all competitors of WordPress.com, is going against a competitor that has high load towards free resources of WordPress.org, having many customers, but not contributing anything towards those free resources. And WordPress.org has banned that leecher from keep stressing their systems for free with no contributions. When Matt said to go to pick another WordPress hosting instead of WPEngine, WordPress.com wasn't mentioned either.

munbun|prev|next|

Let’s call this what it is:

Automattic shaking down the biggest competitor to his hosting business.

But a service disruption like this is bad strategy.

WPEngine runs accounts for many very recognizable brands and large orgs - kinds of clients Matt wants to see switch over.

Given disruptions like this, those clients are far more likely to see Wordpress as unreliable software before their hosting provider.

And Matt might not realize it but almost all of those large accounts already have multiple devs who are _eager_ to migrate away from Wordpress.


safety1st|parent|next|

1.5 million sites impacted including some of the biggest. For every day that this persists, 1.5 million websites are at a heightened risk for exploitation and security vulnerabilities.

All Matt needed to do to avoid this catastrophe was pursue his central claim (which is a trademark claim) the usual way - in a court of law - and give WP Engine 30 days or something to get off of his infrastructure before cutting them off. Or even 10 days.

In other words, think of the users before you think about yourself.

But he didn't. He is doing catastrophic damage to the reputation of WordPress. The best thing for WordPress is now for him to resign from his job and end his participation in the community immediately.

He did not seem to understand that this action was going to create thousands of enemies at thousands of companies overnight. He seems totally shocked by the reaction.

To the extent that many businesses depend on WordPress and its good reputation which Matt may have irrevocably damaged - from what I'm hearing there's already talk about a class action lawsuit against him.


eXpl0it3r|root|parent|next|

My guess is, that he knows, that his trademark claims will likely not hold up in court and he'd need to spend some money to get to court in the first place.

As such it's easier to try to negotiation something in the backrooms and since that didn't work, try to extort them, and since that failed, try to publicly ruin them, which seems to backfire in a spectacular way.

Automattic has sponsored WP Engine in the past. Matt has talked very good about WP Engine in the past. WP Engine's use of WP is not a violation and WP Engine's use of "Wordpress" is arguably a descriptive usage - at the very least, it's very hard to argue that WP Engine could be confused with Wordpress itself. So even if there's really something to sue over regarding trademark usage, it will be really hard to argue, because of how long the usage has been accepted.

I've been really surprised that wordpress.org isn't under community governance, but seems to be a quasi "charity" project by Matt. It's at the core of the whole community, but a single person holds the key to it? We should really get wordpress.org into the hands of the community and transparently finance it through the foundation.

Personally, I don't think it's right to block anyone from using wordpress.org's theme/plugin/update repository functionality over a dispute with Automattic or personal grudge from Matt.


chilldsgn|parent|prev|next|

I'm one of those devs who migrated all of the company sites to Laravel-based CMSes. Waaaay better experience, users are happy, updates are a breeze, and the sites are fast and reliable.

WordPress has become so tacky and this drama is exacerbating the problem. I don't see a bright future for WordPress, unfortunately.


cranium|parent|prev|next|

In the end, he really took the "scorched earth nuclear approach". Small problem: the land become inhabitable and nobody wants to touch this radioactive dump.

My thoughts are to the devs with clients on these platforms; they are going to take the heat for all the problems in place of the real disrupter.


robertjpayne|root|parent|next|

I reckon they will change the license terms much like Facebook licenses llama.

chiefalchemist|parent|prev|next|

> And Matt might not realize...

My sense is he does realize it. The pie is no longer expanding. This is a preemptive strike to get more of what there is.

Let's not be naive. This isn't about WPE contributing to core. It's not about trademarks. No one connected to an OSS project goes nuclear over trademarks.

It's about money.


iambateman|prev|next|

This will someday be an MBA case study on how to blunder a PR campaign.

WPEngine is _not_ a sympathetic character by default. They’re a decent hosting provider with an ambitious enterprise sales team…they have nowhere near the level of accumulated goodwill that WordPress had. It doesn’t take a genius press team to make them look like a playground bully.

Nothing that has happened over the past week has been executed well from a comms standpoint.

That’s why I want to ask…is Matt ok? Executives are people too, and his decisions make him seem very isolated. If he’s psychologically unwell, I hope he gets the help he needs. If he is ok, I hope he’s fired by the board tomorrow.


itsFolf|parent|next|

A couple months back Matt had a personal feud with a Tumblr user and proceeded to harass them across platforms which included posting their private account information on twitter in an inflammatory response (which he deleted some 15 minutes later after realizing the several laws he must've broken). This is his usual behavior. https://techcrunch.com/2024/02/22/tumblr-ceo-publicly-spars-...

Maxious|root|parent|next|

A couple of hours ago Matt dropped into a twitch stream and offered up an interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6F0PgMcKWM

> Matt [7:18]: "They [wp engine] fired a incident report against me that said I berated them and cursed at them in their [wordcamp] booth now if you ask anyone who knows me I actually don't curse like I don't use curse words at all and they put information out there saying that I told them to f off you know which is not true and there were witnesses there"

> Matt [23:19]: "um you know WP enginer is going to lose a lot of customers. Silver Lake stands to lose billions of dollars so they are going to pull out every dirty trick smear campaign Cambridge analytica stuff Palantir. They're going to try to attack and smear me and automattic wordpress. Working as much as possible so you know if you see terrible stuff about me coming out I don't know like just know that there's probably someone paying for that um that's that's one thing I'll say"


bn-l|root|parent|prev|next|

I think being banned for a post like this is fair enough:

> [I hope] that the CEO dies a forever painful death involving a car […]


itsFolf|root|parent|next|

Can't disagree, but the huge mistake started at “We generally do not comment on individual cases, but". A CEO recklessly copy pasting information from his platform's internal moderation portal into a public forum should really put into question their ability to stay level headed while running the business and the effectiveness of their company's policies and security practices. I genuinely cannot think of any other case this mind boggling.

lolinder|prev|next|

Open Source outgrew the Free Software movement by being intentionally pragmatic and business-oriented, but the seams are really starting to show, and I'm increasingly interested in seeing a resurgence of the principles of the Free Software movement.

> To use free software is to make a political and ethical choice asserting the right to learn, and share what we learn with others. Free software has become the foundation of a learning society where we share our knowledge in a way that others can build upon and enjoy. [0]

The constant battles in Open Source communities over who is allowed to use "their" software and for what seem to stem from a completely different outlook on freedom than the FSF puts forward. Free Software is produced out of a desire to ensure maximal user freedom and freedom of information—it's an ethical stance one takes, and as such it doesn't become less valuable when people make money using your work, if anything it becomes more valuable. You contribute to it because it matters, not because you expect to get anything out of it besides the software itself.

I'm not sure if Open Source is another casualty of the increasing commercialization of the web or if it's always been this way, but I think it's high time we take a second look at the ethically-driven development principles of GNU and the FSF.

[0] https://www.fsf.org/about/what-is-free-software


marcus_holmes|parent|next|

Agree. The fundamental differences between Free Software and Open Source but Commercial Software were always tricky.

The "we'd like you to contribute to our code base, but we want to be the only people making money from it" position of a lot of Open Source companies is untenable. And you can easily see how the original "anyone can make money off this code" position would get warped over time and board meetings to "these parasites are stealing our revenue".

I think it reflects the other side of the problem, the way that maintainers of open source packages get abused and taken advantage of. We need to work out some way of funding and rewarding software development that allows it to be freely used and also adequately compensated. This is not easy.


schneems|parent|prev|next|

From the article:

> WordPress’s GPL code

Which, is a FSF license. What change are you advocating for in this situation?


lolinder|root|parent|next|

It's a question of philosophy, not license. The whole "release code under GPL but get angry when other people besides you start making more money than you do from it" thing is strikingly different from the attitude in the GPL FAQ:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.en.htm...

The difference I'm flagging is about why you write the code, not just what license you choose. Free Software is about user freedoms, which freedoms are in no way hampered by the existence of an entity like WP Engine but are hampered when you go scorched earth against said entity.


redwall_hp|root|parent|next|

It's also worth noting that WordPress is a descendent of the B2/cafelog blogging software. Automattic, themselves, are the other people making money off of someone else's project...and now they're mad that other other people are doing the same.

jahewson|root|parent|prev|next|

What people say is one thing but one should draw conclusions instead from what they do. Too often the GPL is used to enforce a two-tier system in which everyone is free but some are more free than others. The original creators of a work retain proprietary and commercial relicensing rights while everyone else gets serfdom.

CaptArmchair|root|parent|next|

That's not because of the GPL. The GPL has little to do with barring access to a platform on which code is published. Arguably, if a copy existed elsewhere, say GitHub, then WPEngine is free to use that code according to the GPL.

In other words: once code is published with the GPL and someone has a copy, the original creators can do little to nothing to stop them from using said code however they see fit. That's what drives forking.

In the same vain, original creators always have, and will have, the freedom as rights holders over creative works, to change the license on new versions published. Of course, the caveat being holding the rights over contributions made by third parties (hence the existence of contested contributor agreements).

The real issue here is a for-profit entity driving the governance of a non-profit entity. There's not just the ethical but also legality at play here. And this has little to do with copyright.


lolinder|root|parent|prev|next|

Agreed. And the communications I'm seeing out of WordPress.org around this very much suggest that WordPress is firmly in that category.

gtirloni|root|parent|prev|next|

The issue at hand seems to be WP Engine using Automattic-sponsored infrastructure for their own for-profit services, not modifications to free software.

lolinder|root|parent|next|

That's the place that Matt decided to hit them, but that's not where the complaint lies. The complaint as laid out in the blog posts [0][1] is nearly identical to the complaints that Elastic had against AWS: trademark use causing confusion and drawing customers away from the "official" offerings.

Beyond that, Matt absolutely has beef with modifications that WP Engine has made to the free software, going so far as to say that these modifications mean that what they're offering is "not WordPress". Never mind that WordPress.com is likewise a bastardized modification—that's okay because it's "us" doing the modifying!

> This is one of the many reasons they are a cancer to WordPress, and it’s important to remember that unchecked, cancer will spread. WP Engine is setting a poor standard that others may look at and think is ok to replicate. We must set a higher standard to ensure WordPress is here for the next 100 years.

This kind of attitude is incompatible with the premise of Free Software, which places a strong emphasis on encouraging reuse and modification to suit user needs.

[0] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/

[1] https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/


bad_user|parent|prev|next|

You're trying to come up with distinctions between Open Source and Free Software where there are practically none, except for the politics of Free Software, which is inconsequential BS.

lolinder|root|parent|next|

I guess what I'm saying is that the politics (I phrased it as ethics, but I think we're talking about the same thing) are far more consequential than people give them credit for, and isolating the mechanics from the ethical framework is why Open Source is losing coherency as a movement—it's a religion with no doctrine, and in the absence of a strong inward-facing ethic it doesn't have enough staying power to hold out in the face of monetary incentives.

bad_user|root|parent|next|

The whole point of Open Source was for it to not be a religion.

If anything, it is the indoctrination in Free Software that led many young people to believe that proprietary software is immoral. Coupled with zero-interest rates, this led to companies founded without sustainable business models. The companies making it work are usually doing so by selling products and services where the OSS parts are complementary and not the main product being sold, and it's a good thing they do.

I'd say that the doctrine part doesn't help at all.


nijave|prev|next|

I have a hard time being sympathetic for Matt given what I've read so far. The C&D WPR sent shows plenty of quotes about Matt threatening to talk poorly about WPE unless they pay up.

If WPE is abusing WordPress infrastructure then sure, block them. It seems like corporate politics with WordPress.com are deeply entwined here.

As other commenters have pointed out, it's very unclear what the relationship between Automattic, WordPress.com, WordPress.org, and the WordPress Foundation are. In the very least, it seems a conflict of interest to have the same person running all of them.

From Matt, they were asking for 8% of revenue to license the WordPress trademark and donations to Automattic. https://www.reddit.com/user/photomatt/

Why not ask for donations to the WordPress Foundation or donate infrastructure/mirrors if that were the actual point of contention...


FlamingMoe|prev|next|

IMO the craziest revelation in this whole ordeal is that Matt personally owns WordPress.org. I have worked with WP for close to a decade and I was always under the impression that it was owned by the nonprofit foundation.

So this means that a large chunk of the functionality (plugin directory and updates) of a standard WP install relies on a website controlled by one man. No way this dynamic can be allowed to continue after this whole mess.


wfjackson3|prev|next|

This is one of the worst attempts to handle a corporate dispute that I have ever seen. Forget all of the he said he said arguments for a second and see what a random person who decided to use WordPress will see.

If Automatic gets mad at the company I use to host this site, they will randomly start holding my site hostage by deactivating services. No host is safe. I probably shouldn't use WordPress.

I don't care who is wrong or right here. This is peak "cutting off your nose to spite your face" behavior.


dang|prev|next|

Related. Others?

Incident: Wordpress.org has blocked WP Engine customers from registry - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41655578 - Sept 2024 (84 comments)

WP Engine is banned from WordPress.org - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41652760 - Sept 2024 (53 comments)

Automattic has sent a cease and desist to WP Engine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41642974 - Sept 2024 (10 comments)

Open Source, Trademarks, and WP Engine - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41642597 - Sept 2024 (48 comments)

WP Engine sent “cease and desist” letter to Automattic - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41631912 - Sept 2024 (254 comments)


rmccue|parent|next|

Also: WP Engine Must Win -https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41653480

(Disclaimer: my submission and post. I am a WordPress core committer and built the REST API for it.)


rpgbr|parent|prev|next|

Matt Mullenweg needs to step down from WordPress.org leadership ASAP - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41620051 (31 comments)

ChrisArchitect|parent|prev|next|

Why not merge this with the existing thread on the official post that it references? This is a dupe. An after-the-fact submission talking about the source.

Communitivity|prev|next|

My empathy is with Automatic on this one, but I still think it's the wrong move.

"Now one could say that the license allows that and it's legal. Sure, but so is cutting their free access off. If WPEngine is just leeching and spending nothing on improving the product, there's no way anyone can compete with them on price. Open Source is expensive, people need to be paid."-jeswin

If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source. Most companies I've dealt with would rather pay for commercial software and offload the risk onto the software company that use an Open Source project they view as risky in any way. Companies can already view Open Source projects as risky in a number of ways: lots of drama/turnover in a project, a single BFDL controls everything, viral license. For many projects the rewards from using it outweigh these risks.

However, all the above risks can be evaluated before a company decides to build using an Open Source project. If projects are seen as able to block availability unilaterally without a license violation, that's a risk that can't be evaluated before investing perhaps millions using it. Of course, this would all be evaluated and we'd live in a better world if companies heavily using an Open Source project decided to allocate 1% of the software engineering budget as a donation to that project.


troyvit|parent|next|

> If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source.

But access to wordpress.org's servers has nothing to do with Open Source. WP Engine is free to use and modify the WordPress code to their heart's content. They just don't get to use the wordpress.org servers for free anymore.


015a|root|parent|next|

Sure, but I think at minimum there's a reasonable realty where Automattic/the foundation:

1. Creates an official policy that states the level of usage of the public WordPress services/resources which constitutes requiring a business relationship with the Foundation (e.g. N terabytes transferred per month)

2. Attach a dollar amount.

3. Inform WP-Engine that they're in violation of this new policy and they have N days to comply or their access will be terminated (where N is at least 90 but ideally 180/360).

Matt's recent interview with the Primeagen suggests that while "discussions" with WP-Engine go back years, he couldn't give a straight answer for whether other services may be vulnerable to the same retribution WP-Engine faced, specifically and quantifiably why WP-Engine received retribution while other entities don't, and if specific prior notice of the actions Automattic took was given to WP-Engine. Instead, it was vibey: A bunch of "well, they use a lot, server resources, our trademark, yeah other entities use a lot too, but those other entities give back, stuff, to the community, WP-Engine gives back some stuff, but not enough." Prime tried to get more out of him multiple times but it just ended with him saying "I'm sorry, I'm sick and really tired".


kmeisthax|root|parent|prev|next|

Here's what I predict WP Engine will do next week in response:

1. They will scrape the entire WordPress.org plugin registry (people are already circulating scrapers around Mastodon)

2. They will open their own separate plugin registry, with blackjack and hookers

3. They will update their mu-plugin to hook the WordPress autoupdater and point it to their own infrastructure on every site they host

They can do this because WordPress is GPL and so are all the plugins. GPL can't be revoked unless you fuck up a source release, which is genuinely hard to do in PHP. And WordPress is GPLv2+, meaning GPLv3 with its way more lenient revocation terms are available.

I assume at some point Automattic will insist that scraping WordPress.org is now illegal or something, and then every plugin author will have to go through an annoying process of claiming their WP Engine Plugin Registry entries and updating everything in two places, fracturing the community because of the FOSS world's most petty trademark fight.


slouch|root|parent|prev|next|

The software running on those servers was built by volunteers, some of which are now scrambling to help their clients who are blocked from using that software.

hedgehog|root|parent|next|

Is the .org infrastructure built or operated by volunteers? It doesn't seem like that part is even open source.

troyvit|root|parent|prev|next|

Sure. The software is free. Why should the server be free?

Kwpolska|parent|prev|next|

> If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it, even if the company adheres to the letter of the license (if not the spirit), then most companies won't use Open Source.

Companies can't use proprietary software without the risk of being banned or refused a licence renewal either.


Terretta|parent|prev|next|

> Most companies I've dealt with would rather pay for commercial software and offload the risk onto the software company that use an Open Source project they view as risky in any way.

This seems less applicable when the company is using the software to offer it as that commercial cut-out.


timeon|parent|prev|next|

I'm do not want to talk about whole thing, I do not know what to think about that but:

> If companies can't use Open Source without the risk that the project could ban them from using it...

Isn't this more about infrastructure (wordpress.org)? All plugins are still downloadable and able to install via SFTP.


jeswin|prev|next|

If like Matt says, they contribute little back to Wordpress then I am with Automattic on this. If you're a tiny org, you don't need to contribute back. But if you're making half a billion in revenue every year on top of someone else's tech, you need to stay involved and contribute back in a very significant way.

Now one could say that the license allows that and it's legal. Sure, but so is cutting their free access off. If WPEngine is just leeching and spending nothing on improving the product, there's no way anyone can compete with them on price. Open Source is expensive, people need to be paid.

Bottom line: Size matters. Meta's company-size based licensing (as seen in Llama) is a step in the right direction. FOSS projects should adopt it more widely where it matters.


ankleturtle|parent|next|

> But if you're making half a billion in revenue every year on top of someone else's tech, you need to stay involved and contribute back in a very significant way.

Revenue is a red herring. It is not an appropriate measure to determine if and how much one should contribute to an open source project.

Instead, we should measure the need to contribute by the burden one places on the project.

Do you request features or bug fixes? Contribute appropriately.

Do you request support? Contribute appropriately.

Do you simply copy, install, and run the existing software? No need to contribute.


sunir|parent|prev|next|

If you go down this path of creating rules that say people should pay to use open source, you’ll discover there are already laws in place sufficient to manage this situation. If a project uses these laws, then you’ll complain the project isn’t open source.

If you prefer the capricious nature of the politics of social shaming instead of the rules based system of laws and courts, I guess that is being consistent even if the actual process is very inconsistent and unpredictable.

If not, then it’s not clear to me how you’re taking a philosophical stance about open source if you’re demanding payment. Those ideas don’t work together.


YPPH|parent|prev|next|

>But if you're making half a billion in revenue every year on top of someone else's tech, you need to stay involved and contribute back in a very significant way.

Where does the GPL state this requirement? It doesn't.

If WordPress doesn't like this, they should have licenced their software under the AGPL or some other licence with stronger copylefting.

Plenty of large commercial entities use BSD licenced software and make a fortune off the software, with little given in return. Take FreeBSD and the significant commercial operations it drives. They never whinge. Because that's the choice they made, and they stick to their principles.


tsurba|root|parent|next|

GPL doesn’t, but as others have already said, this discussion is not about that. If they want to keep using someone else’s free server capacity, maybe they should be giving something in return.

yreg|parent|prev|next|

If you have such expectations then clearly state the rules.

- individuals and companies under $a yearly revenue can use the product for free

- companies under $b have to pay $x

- companies under $c have to pay $y

Pretending that something is free to use and then getting disappointed when someone rich indeed uses that thing for free and fighting with them doesn't help anyone at all. (This is not specific to Wordpress.)


lnxg33k1|root|parent|next|

I feel like there could be little need for rules if people had a little common sense, then if you have targets, other start doing the bare minimum, I'd rather have parasites like WPEngine put off

0cf8612b2e1e|root|parent|next|

Does that mean every successful company needs to start financing Linux, curl, Postgres, Python, etc which are undoubtedly powering who knows how much internal infrastructure?

Either you are a free license or not.


vagrantJin|root|parent|next|

Its not a crazy concept , the real world non-idealized version of your statement is called tax. We pay taxes for access to free public services.

snowwrestler|root|parent|next|

Ok but taxes that are invented on the spot by an all-powerful ruler, and imposed by surprise, under immediate threat, do not have a great history in modern society.

ankleturtle|root|parent|prev|next|

Free public services are a finite resource. Already existing software is not.

ValentineC|root|parent|next|

Software maintenance is a finite resource too.

ankleturtle|root|parent|next|

Software maintenance is not already existing software though.

krapp|root|parent|prev|next|

It is a crazy concept, because taxes are coerced by governments under the threat of violence, whereas the freedoms of FOSS software are intended to be entirely non-coercive. To require compensation of any kind for access and the right to use and distribute code is contrary to the spirit of free and open source software.

If people want to do that, then fair enough, just don't call if free or open source. And don't license your code under free or open source licenses if you care about getting credit or compensation or anything but maximizing software freedom.


aleph_minus_one|root|parent|next|

> It is a crazy concept, because taxes are coerced by governments under the threat of violence, whereas the freedoms of FOSS software are intended to be entirely non-coercive.

In doubt, you will have to enforce the freedoms of FOSS by going to a court (i.e. use the governmental "violence enforcement system"). On the other hand, if you pay your taxes "voluntarily", you won't be coerced by the government.

In other words: in both cases threats of violence are involved.


sunir|root|parent|prev|next|

There is already the shared source model.

What people call things is a marketing phenomenon. You can complain all you want.. and you should.


sunir|root|parent|prev|next|

It’s not incoherent. It’s a rule that could be made and adhered to for a project.

It’s not possible for GPL projects to restrict the code this way, but the peripheral assets like trademarks, servers, conference slots, board seats, core contributor status could be restricted.


BadHumans|root|parent|prev|next|

I would actually say yes, they should start doing exactly that.

voltaireodactyl|root|parent|prev|next|

What you describe constitutes an ideal scenario, frankly. Similar to paying taxes for using roads for deliveries.

EasyMark|root|parent|prev|next|

I agree, if I would making bookoo bucks off of someone else’s “open”platform, you could be 100% sure I would be feeding the golden goose some grain to build some rapport. If I’m playing with it in my homelab, maybe not so much but try occasionally to donate if it’s an OSS project that $10-50 makes a difference for.

eli|root|parent|next|

And if you didn't want to do that it would be appropriate for the OSS project to retaliate?

consteval|root|parent|next|

It's not retaliation to revoke free access to your web resources.

If I scrape some website, I could be IP banned at any time. That's just how it goes.

It's one thing to use web resources on a small scale, as a user. It's another to milk them dry and practically DDOS their servers. That can, and will, get you banned. Open source or not.


eli|root|parent|next|

Of course it's retaliation. Wordpress.org said as much in the announcement - they don't like WP Engine's business model, don't think they contribute enough upstream, etc. And therefore they cut off access to the wordpress.org update servers. Nothing about "practically DDOS" of the server.

nijave|root|parent|prev|next|

It is if they get mad you sent a cease and desist.

dingnuts|root|parent|prev|next|

in this case the "rules" you're talking about are licensing terms, so I have trouble interpreting your statement as anything other than "licenses wouldnt be needed if everyone would just use software the way the author wants"

How is WPEngine a parasite? If you don't want people to use your code don't release it GPL


consteval|root|parent|next|

Has absolutely nothing to do with the license, the code was and is GPL-2.

GPL-2 doesn't force you to allow free access to web resources. This is a separate problem altogether. You'd get banned even if they were closed source.


georgehotelling|parent|prev|next|

What's the economic incentive for WP Engine to give back? They have a moral duty, sure, but as a business where is the profit? Anything they contribute to core will immediately be available to their competitors, so the naive read is that there's no competitive advantage in contributing back.

However, if they can influence the direction of the project, they can align it with your business goals. That gives them a competitive advantage, that gives them an incentive.

The challenge is that Matt is acting as a BDFL of the open source project. If Matt doesn't want your change added, your change isn't going to get added. There is no one to appeal to, Matt has absolute authority over the code that goes into the open source project that WP Engine's business is built on. Matt is also the CEO of WP Engine's competitor, Automattic.

This conflict of interest has come to a head in the past week and shone a spotlight on the lack of community stewardship of the WordPress project.

Keep in mind that Automattic requires its employees to get approval for any paid side gigs related to software because Matt believes that it creates conflicts of interest. You cannot work on WordPress for Automattic during the day and then freelance making paid WordPress plugins at night, due to the misaligned incentives. The fact that Matt isn't being paid a salary for his work on WordPress is irrelevant, given Automattic's equity is tied to the value of WordPress.

I think private equity skews heavily towards value extraction over value creation. I think that people who build businesses off of open source have a moral obligation to give back to the projects. I think that giving Automattic money to spend on WP core work will make WordPress better.

However, breaking the trust of the community does exponentially more damage to the future of WordPress than any freeloading company. The community trusts that the trademark licenses will not change to target them. The community trusts that their software will benefit from security updates and the plugin ecosystem. That trust is the foundation of WordPress and this week's actions have done damage.

Matt talked about going nuclear, and I think that the metaphor is apt, because when the smoke clears we may be left with no winners.

(I'm a former Automattic employee who roots for open source, WordPress, Automattic, and the vision of the open web Matt Mullenweg has shared.)


015a|root|parent|next|

What is Netflix's economic incentive to pay their AWS bill every month?

My point is: The single thing the Wordpress side appears (to me) to have fucked up is that they seem to have made this personal. If they made a policy that when partners/consumers of the code/trademarks/services reach a certain well-defined size/usage threshold/etc then charge them X%/require a certain contribution back/etc; give proper notice; even if this policy were "silently" selectively enforced against WP-Engine because someone in Automattic has a grudge to grind: Their goodwill would be much higher.

Because then every single conversation about this starts with "Well, we have this policy, and we told WP-Engine about it six months ago and they ghosted us, oh well what other option do we have?" and not he-said she-said we've been talking for years blackmailing conference talks mess.

WP-Engine is a business. Treat them like one. Because you're exactly right, WP-Engine has no economic incentive to give back: So freakin bill them!


digging|root|parent|prev|next|

> What's the economic incentive for WP Engine to give back? They have a moral duty, sure, but as a business where is the profit?

Avoiding this exact situation which kills their business


tacker2000|root|parent|next|

What do you mean? They should pay up and submit to extortion and the whims of one guy?

They have 0 duty to do anything for WP. And thats also how WP got big. If everyone had to contrbute back, would the ecosystem be so big and WP be used everywhere? I doubt it.


patmcc|root|parent|prev|next|

This situation might kill one of WP Engine or Wordpress.com, but I sure wouldn't bet on it being WP Engine that ends up in the grave.

ziddoap|root|parent|prev|next|

>Avoiding this exact situation which kills their business

This situation is not going to kill WP Engine.


AlienRobot|root|parent|prev|next|

I think the problem isn't just that WP Engine doesn't contribute. I read that they pledged to, then had an internal policy not to contribute, and fired an employee for telling this to Matt on Twitter.

If that is really the case, WP Engine had to be exceptionally antagonistic against WP dot org for things to end up like this, but most people are treating it as if it is a simple conflict of interest between WP dot com and WP Engine.

>Last week, in a blog post, Mullenweg said WP Engine was contributing 47 hours per week to the “Five for the Future” investment pledge to contribute resources toward the sustained growth of WordPress. Comparatively, he said Automattic was contributing 3,786 hours per week. He acknowledged that while these figures are just a “proxy,” there is a large gap in contribution despite both companies being a similar size and generating around a half billion dollars in revenue.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/23/wp-engine-sends-cease-and-...

I really think they could have handled the PR better by providing more information about the decision on the official announcement. "Uses WP but doesn't contribute back" is something that applies to too many. "Built whole business on WP, pledged to contribute, but then didn't" is something that applies to very few.


Sebb767|parent|prev|next|

> Meta's company-size based licensing (as seen in Llama) is a step in the right direction.

We have been bitten by that hard in the past. As a small company (a few students, hardly 5 figure revenue) we've sold our product to a known household-brand to use as a gadget for an exhibition. In said product, we used a library that used revenue-based licensing. For some reason, the company behind that library heard of us having scored that customer and suddenly demanded insane amount of licensing fees. Luckily, the purchasing department of the customer offered to handle this and negotiate a deal; otherwise, this could have immediately sunk our company.


rpgbr|parent|prev|next|

Under GPLv2, WP Engine has no obligation of pay the ransom Matt is demanding no matter the revenue they make.

teruakohatu|root|parent|next|

But nor does the WordPress foundation need to allow WP Engine, or any user, access to the plugin library.

Chromium is Open Source, but Google is not required to allow Add On store access (even if they tolerate it from chromium forks).


Touche|root|parent|next|

Requiring they pay the for-profit company to access non-profit resources seems problematic.

sinkasapa|root|parent|prev|next|

As far as I could tell, they weren't denied use of the code, just a bunch of other services that are not covered by the GPLv2.

tylermenezes|root|parent|prev|next|

GPLv2 licenses the Wordpress code, not trademarks or the right to use Automattic's APIs.

ValentineC|root|parent|next|

Before this week, I didn't realise that the WordPress.org servers and plugin repositories fell under Automattic, and not WordPress Foundation.

Some clarity would be nice.


n3storm|parent|prev|next|

I wonder how much does Automattic contribute to the PHP, MySQL, MariaDB, jQuery, ... organizations?

desas|root|parent|next|

  * https://thephp.foundation/  one of three platinum level sponsors
  * MySQL doesn't take sponsorships afaict
  * https://mariadb.org/about/#stakeholders one of several silver sponsors of MariaDB
  * https://x.com/SlexAxton/status/1839091643338862828 "I was on the board of the jQuery foundation during some of the glory years and @photomatt was the ~largest donor"

mrkramer|parent|prev|next|

>If you're a tiny org, you don't need to contribute back. But if you're making half a billion in revenue every year on top of someone else's tech, you need to stay involved and contribute back in a very significant way.

For example Sony sold more than 100 million units of PS4 and made billions of dollars from it and how much they contributed to the open source projects they've used in PS4? Take a look at OSS projects used in PS4: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/oss/ps4/

Did they contribute anything? Did they contribute 100% enough or just 20% or 30%?

If the software is open sourced and if license allows you to do anything with it then you are indeed free to do anything with it including selling products which include OSS.


consteval|root|parent|next|

You're free to do it but nobody has to help you certainly.

Ultimately it's a matter of common sense. Sure, if I leave out my "take one" bowl on Halloween and someone takes it all, there's no rules against that. But next year I might be more cautious and hand out the candy myself - now what?

If you've built a business off taking all my candy and reselling it, you're fucked! If you had just been less greedy and taken, say, 10 instead of the whole bowl I might not have cared.


poincaredisk|root|parent|next|

If the rule is "take one" and someone takes everything, than a rule is in fact breached. In your example the candy bowl is explicitly marked as "take as much as you want" and someone does. If you don't want that, label it appropriately next year.

I'm this case, the license explicitly allows everyone to use the software for free. I don't understand your candy analogies. If you're not OK with people using your software for free, use a commercial license (or a dual licensing model, or one of a hundred possible solutions other than a free license).


spookie|root|parent|prev|next|

Sony contributes back. To FreeBSD even, they are even listed in their list of contributors.

Hell they're one of the only 2 companies that let you compile android with their firmware for their phones. They even have instructions on their site.

This is whatabouttism, but damn, they don't deserve this kinda talk.

Example: https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/0abe05aeac29d997...


mrkramer|root|parent|next|

>Sony contributes back. To FreeBSD even, they are even listed in their list of contributors.

I just used Sony as an example to tinker what is the definition of contributing enough that Matt Mullenweg was talking about:https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine/#:~:text=(To%20....)

I don't have anything against Sony.


Wowfunhappy|root|parent|prev|next|

I think this issue is complicated and I have no answers. However, I do feel Wordpress is much more central to WPEngine's business than e.g. FreeBSD is to Sony's.

hobofan|root|parent|prev|next|

1. This is pure whataboutism. Just because Sony doesn't contribute (I don't know whether they do or don't), doesn't make it right.

2. There is obviously a difference between "selling products that include OSS" and "selling OSS 1:1". It's not like Sony's firmware/dashboard is maintained by "OpenGamingConsoleDashboard" and they are selling a 95% repackage of that to their end users (also ignoring the hardware). This pertains to the software maintenance logistics layer and not the licensing layer. Sure, both in the Sony and WPEngine cases they are in the clear on the licensing, but that doesn't make for sustainable development of the underlying software. I'd also wager that if the OSS projects used in the PS4 would drum up enough of a social media stink, they'd have decent chances of getting some compensation (e.g. the TLDraw maintainers did that quite a few times successfully).


KomoD|root|parent|next|

They're not "selling OSS 1:1", they're selling managed hosting.

asmor|parent|prev|next|

This is a horrible way to go about it though. WP Engine users are still WordPress users, and cutting them off without notice is very shitty. I wouldn't trust WordPress for anything after this, if all that it takes to cut you off from updates - potentially security updates - is Matt Mullenweg not liking you (or your ISP).

bachmeier|root|parent|next|

If you're running a large business and you don't have a plan in case a free resource provided by someone else goes away, you shouldn't be in business. It really is that simple.

EasyMark|root|parent|next|

“The market is merciless” is something a business should always keep in mind, at least when their existence isn’t guaranteed for some reason.

lolinder|root|parent|prev|next|

OP isn't talking about large businesses, they're talking about the hundreds of thousands of small businesses using WP Engine as a host.

bachmeier|root|parent|next|

Those small businesses are purchasing something from WP Engine. It's up to WP Engine to deliver, and it's ridiculous if a company that size fails to deliver because they were freeloading without having a backup plan in place. The fault is entirely on WP Engine (who sold the service) not Wordpress (who made no promises at all to WP Engine customers).

lolinder|root|parent|next|

So it's okay for WordPress.org to damage a bunch of WordPress users because they're not customers of Automattic and therefore WordPress.org has no obligations to them?

It's this kind of blurring of lines between Automattic and the foundation that has people very very concerned here.


Andrew_nenakhov|root|parent|next|

Yes it's OK. Free Software means that users have freedoms, not that the developer is obliged to provide them free services forever.

cies|root|parent|prev|next|

They could move their sites over to the WordPress.com, can't they?

Since they offer competing services in the first place.


lolinder|root|parent|next|

And herein lies the conflict of interest. WordPress.org is acting in the interests of Automattic at the expense of the community.

dazc|root|parent|prev|next|

If wordpress.com offered a good product then the likes of wpengine, kinsta, etc would never have gotten off the ground.

asmor|root|parent|prev|next|

WPCOM is a very limited WordPress - much more limited than Mullenweg is accusing WP Engine of being.

The real competitor in Automattics portfolio is Pressable. Who are currently running a poaching campaign on their frontpage.


batuhanicoz|root|parent|next|

WordPress.com started out as a WordPressµ (WordPress Multi User) provider. Just a place for people to quickly start their own blogs, mainly hosted on a WordPress.com subdomain. To learn more about WordPress MU: https://codex.wordpress.org/WordPress_MU

"WordPress hosting" is a relatively new option on WordPress.com. Pressable is a more advanced WordPress hosting provider, built by Automattic.

Disclaimer: I work at Automattic.


prox|root|parent|next|

Obviously you don’t have to answer, but it feels like with Pressable as a product, WPE suddenly became a big competitor to the bottom line. It is here where the optics suddenly become shady. Like WPE has been running like they do for years, and now suddenly it is a big problem? Like why now?

Personally I also don’t like that the .org suddenly becomes weaponized. If this can be done to WPE, it can be done to anyone else really.


benatkin|root|parent|prev|next|

Their title is fitting at least: "Truly Incredible WordPress Hosting by Pressable". Yes, it's hard to believe their antics.

mikeyinternews|root|parent|prev|next|

WPE isn't cheap and subscriptions are typically yearly contracts, so it's not that simple for those operating on a specific budget

dncornholio|root|parent|prev|next|

WordPress.com is actually doing the exact shady things that WP Engine does. Confusing WordPress.org users that they need a paid account to run WordPress.

cies|root|parent|next|

You need to pay for hosting right? Nothing new.

Sure WP also has some freemium model, but I do not consider that shady.

Have you seen the Automattic CEO talk (link to YT in other comment in this thread). I dont think he's in shady business: he's releasing loads of source code under the GPL!


thekid314|root|parent|next|

He’s also using the foundations copyright to target the primary competitor to his for-profit business, demanding that they invest in the profits of the for-profit company, at the expense of the WordPress open-source community. None of this looks altruistic or for the good of wordpress.org.

RealStickman_|root|parent|prev|next|

Is that supposed to make this blatantly anti-competitive behaviour okay?

cies|root|parent|next|

Sorry? Their service is... their service! They can extend of refuse service to whom they want.

Automattic is releasing source code, which, in my book, is being super friendly to competitors. It seems to me you are holding the good guys (that release under FLOSS licenses) to a higher standard than any other company that keeps the source to them selves.


ValentineC|root|parent|next|

> Automattic is releasing source code, which, in my book, is being super friendly to competitors.

WordPress is a GPL project.


n3storm|root|parent|prev|next|

WordPress.org is not "apparently" Automattic

consteval|root|parent|prev|next|

How is it anti-competitive to stop people smashing your APIs? That shit costs money man. It's not free to provide web resources to hundreds of thousands of people.

WPE is essentially DDOSing WP for free. Obviously that shit doesn't fly. Either pay up or get your own server and host your own shit.


martin_a|parent|prev|next|

> If you're a tiny org, you don't need to contribute back. But if you're making [...] contribute back in a very significant way.

I'd like to see the price list on this beforehand, so I can decide whether I want to be a tiny org or a big one. Where's that pricelist?


consteval|root|parent|next|

You don't get one. It's a matter of discretion. Don't be an asshole and you won't have problems.

You'll find that the real world is filled to the brim with exceptions, discretion, and the under-the-table deals. The ones who succeed know how to coax and build them. The ones who fail demand hard rules. Typically, those "hard rules" start at 0, and you get nothing.


lolinder|root|parent|next|

> Don't be an asshole and you won't have problems.

Unless you accidentally end up doing business with an asshole. Matt is definitely making himself look like a danger to do business with—maybe WP Engine just successfully baited him into acting against his community and killing trust and he's not actually as unhinged as he sounds here... but few people would be willing to bet money on that.


handoflixue|root|parent|prev|next|

You realize "I won't tell you the rules" is an asshole move in and of itself, right?

There's 8 billion people on this planet, from hundreds of different cultures. Everyone has different intuitions, different values, different cultural expectations.

I'm not saying the rules have to be hard rules or anything. But if you can't even articulate the basic shape of the rules, then it's really 100% on you when people don't follow the magic ideas in your head.


dncornholio|parent|prev|next|

Where does it state that if you profit x amount of profit you should contribute back? What is the maximum amount of profit you can make?

jeswin|root|parent|next|

> Where does it state that if you profit x amount of profit you should contribute back?

It doesn't. But it doesn't say anywhere that you should get resources (like storage and compute) for free either.

> What is the maximum amount of profit you can make?

I don't know. But I can argue that someone bringing in 500 million a year in revenue should be acting differently from someone bringing in 500k a year. If they contribute back little or nothing, no other player (such as Automattic) who contributes back will be able to compete with them.


EasyMark|root|parent|prev|next|

It’s in your own self interest to know what you’ve built your business on and have a backup plan if the bottom falls out. I don’t really have any compassion for them, but I do for their users.

prox|root|parent|prev|next|

Apparently that’s Matts problem, he says Automattic is giving a lot more back (4000 hours or so) and WPE is doing like 40 hours.

So yeah, is WPE in the right to not give back?

At the heart of this is the same song of making money and the idea of fairness. I honestly don’t know the groundrules here.


fragmede|root|parent|next|

ethically or legally? because they both matter, but they are decided in the court of public opinion and of law, respectively, but only one carries actual fiscal weight.

prox|root|parent|next|

Personally, and I need to read more, is that ethically the problem lies with sharing. Is Matt/automattic ethically obliged due compensation? I think not. WP Engine is its own company like automattic. Would it grace WPE if they do compensate with money or resources? Obviously, but then you might also want to put them in the foundation oversee committee if they do half of the work.

The law, I have no idea in what direction this is going to go!


FireBeyond|root|parent|next|

> Is Matt/automattic ethically obliged due compensation?

This question here goes straight to the heart of things.

WP.org is a 501(c)3 organization. Ostensibly, it has absolutely nothing to do with Automattic. Reality... appears to be somewhat different.

If there were compensation due, it would not be to Automattic.

WP.org has a board of directors, not a dictator. Ostensibly, Matt is the Chairman. Why would he be due compensation?

The fact that such questions even arise shows just how ... murky ... Matt/WP.org/WP.com/Automattic's interactions are.


cies|root|parent|prev|next|

Do they have to state it? I think you simply get a phone call to pony up some cash when Automattic has you on their radar.

tomphoolery|prev|next|

This went from "hey you guys shouldn't use WP Engine because it's not Real WordPress" to "WP Engine is violating trademarks and isn't welcome in the WordPress community anymore" really f'in quick!

batuhanicoz|parent|next|

Publicly, perhaps but we've been trying to resolve these issues with WP Engine for at least 18 months now.

lolinder|root|parent|next|

Just as an FYI: this is a really really bad look from the outside. Your CEO's comments and the new trademark policy sound borderline deranged, and this step of banning them dangerously destabilizes the ecosystem.

WP Engine may be just as bad as you say, but if so they just successfully baited you into making yourselves look like the bad guys.


acdha|root|parent|next|

Yes - I don’t use WP and have no experience with either of those companies but everything I’ve heard about this has been people looking into alternatives because this raises the question of whether it’s motivated by a desire to boost revenue and merely the first step in the process.

graeme|root|parent|prev|next|

What are the issues? Nothing publicly articulated so far appears to have breached any licensing terms or trademark law.

If there are issues then Matt would do well to clearly articulate the problem.


raoulw|root|parent|prev|next|

Therein lies the problem. Why is a8c even involved? This is a WordPress Foundation problem.

ablation|root|parent|prev|next|

OK. But do you really think this public bullying abuse of power from your increasingly unstable-sounding CEO is going to play out well? Good luck I guess.

mplewis|root|parent|prev|next|

Why does your team think that leveraging resources of the nonprofit is an appropriate response to conflict?

trebor|prev|next|

I have used and developed in Wordpress since 3.2. Mullenweng is a dictator and maverick, and I’m not convinced that he’s good for the Wordpress ecosystem.

But neither are highly customized WP hosting platforms.

Revisioning, especially since the post_meta table was added, is a huge burden on the DB. I’ve seen clients add 50 revisions, totaling thousands of revisions and 200k post meta entries. Important enough to call disabling it by default a “cancer”? Chill out Matt.

Revisions aren’t relevant past revision 3-5.


orf|parent|next|

What database is burdened by 200k rows? That’s tiny.

trebor|root|parent|next|

It’s the excess, unaccessed content. The indexes haven’t been well optimized in MySQL (MariaDB is better).

But still. A lot of small companies only pay $20/mo for hosting …


orf|root|parent|next|

But a database can handle tens of millions of rows with those resources.

If you’re worried about excess, why even use Wordpress? My god - serving rarely updated static content with a database? Stupid. The entire thing is excessive and wasteful.


runako|prev|next|

No dog in this fight, but

1) this extremely makes me want to use anything else for my next sites. This added a a lot of ecosystem uncertainty. Will any hosts other than Wordpress.com be allowed this time next year? Who knows, perhaps the plan is to squeeze them all out and then raise prices as the monopoly provider. Smells like the potential for sudden, unplanned site migrations unless you use Wordpress.com.

2) Mullenweg carping about private equity investing in WPE is rich given the capital stack for Automattic. BlackRock, Tiger, Insight, etc. all in the mix. If WPE's investors are bad for business, WPE's customers will leave (which Mullenweg should want!). But broadly, I think most customers generally do not give much consideration to who invests in their vendors.


hadad|prev|next|

Bad leadership from Wordpress.org , you cannot bans company that use modified version of Wordpress and promote using that name ( choice of plugins installed and feature example maximum history ), your company also dosing that ( limit plugin installed on Wordpress.com/Automatic ).

dcchambers|prev|next|

I understand why Matt is frustrated and I sympathize with the situation, but I don't think his approach is going to win him any public favor nor have a long term positive payout.

lioeters|parent|next|

Anyone who may have had sympathies for his arguments are all turned off now that he's gone on a "scorched earth" path. He dragged the non-profit foundation into a business spat involving Automattic and WP Engine, or maybe even between two rich guys, Matt Mullenweg and Lee Wittlinger at Silver Lake, who owns WPE.

Using the org website to make a nasty post slandering WPE. Spreading it via the built-in news metabox on every WordPress dashboard. The org's plugin repository to block WPE's domains/IPs specifically.

That's a single person wielding power in his domain, maybe all legal, but the org should be making decisions as a group and community.


tacker2000|root|parent|next|

Seriously, he spread it to every WP dashboard via the news widget? Thats pretty hilarious and insane at the same time.

I’m really interested to see how this plays out.

Is it possible that WPEngine could do a WP fork?


gkoberger|root|parent|next|

Sure, but that won't make the problem go away. The (most recent) issue is that WP is blocking downloading of extensions, so WPEngine would have to find a way to mirror every extension (and that might not be permissible by licensing?)

ipaddr|root|parent|next|

Would they just move the external call client side and use customers ips to download extension data or use proxies or tor to avoid ip ban?

wg0|prev|next|

Redis, Elasticsearch, Mongo and now WordPress - it seems that Open source is as good and only good when you and only you can sell it. The moment someone else starts to make money or more money then you could have off your effort, does things better than you to market/host/package your open source project, the moment things to start to fall apart.

None of the Open source ethos survive of sharing together, learning together etc.

EDIT: typos


petercooper|parent|next|

Postgres, notably, has not had these problems. There's a thriving ecosystem, despite the trademark, and many providers offer "Postgres" services without Postgres' core organizations or contributors getting their undies in a twist over it.

evanelias|root|parent|next|

That's largely true, but there definitely have been incidents/drama in the recent past. Two that come to mind:

https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/statement-from-the-pos...

https://www.postgresql.org/about/news/trademark-actions-agai...

Also worth considering that EDB is backed by Private Equity, and there was some other very recent incident that seemingly directly resulted in OtterTune folding.


mdasen|root|parent|prev|next|

I think a difference there is that Postgres doesn't have a for-profit semi-attached to it.

There are certainly companies that do work on Postgres, but Postgres wasn't founded by people looking to make a business and its development isn't driven by one primary company (to my knowledge). Postgres started as an academic research project by Turing Award winner Michael Stonebraker. Berkeley released it under a BSD/MIT-like license. It just has a long history of being independent of any company that's the primary driver of its evolution.

That's not to say there aren't companies like EnterpriseDB, Neon, Citus, and others that haven't driven certain aspects of it, but they just don't get the same kind of control over the project.

Crucially, no one can really feel like someone else is making money off a project that's primarily their work. I think companies in the Postgres ecosystem all understand that even if they're a big fish in the Postgres ecosystem, they aren't coming anywhere close to having built 25% of the value in Postgres. It's hard to "get your undies in a twist" if you acknowledge that you've probably gotten more from the historical contributions than you've contributed - even if you're a stellar contributor today.


jeswin|parent|prev|next|

> The moment someone else starts to make money or more money then you could have off your effort

Company A spends X% of their revenue on improving the product. Company B spends nothing. Company B will be able to price their product lower, and take Company A's customers. It's not sustainable.

The solution is to ask Company B to pay up (in cash or resources), and not be leeching.


surgical_fire|root|parent|next|

> Company A spends X% of their revenue on improving the product. Company B spends nothing. Company B will be able to price their product lower, and take Company A's customers. It's not sustainable.

Then don't make an open source product.

What you can't do is try to earn the goodwill that comes with open source, but also expect the profitability of a proprietary product.


Spivak|root|parent|next|

Don't try to base a company around developing and selling open source is a lesson that folks will keep learning again and again. You have to make money doing something else and if your core competency isn't that something else you'll lose to someone where it is.

If you want to sell software then sell software.


snowwrestler|root|parent|prev|next|

WP Engine is not winning because it’s cheaper. It is a better product than what Automattic offers.

That’s why this action by Matt is ridiculous. WP Engine has grown the overall WP market through good product development and investment. That has produced positive effects for the many companies and people who make their money developing and supporting WP sites for clients.


TheHippo|parent|prev|next|

It is not about the code. It is about using other company's server resources.

ceejayoz|root|parent|next|

But they're OK with the use of those resources if WP Engine contributes more code, which makes it... at least partially about the code?

pxtail|parent|prev|next|

> None of the Open source ethos survive of sharing together, learning together etc.

Could be because of that missing part of "sharing together" replaced with "taking and not giving back anything in return"


fortyseven|root|parent|next|

Ethically it may be the right thing to do, but there is no obligation to do so unless it's in the license. If you want to thumb your nose at WPEngine for that, fine, but that's about as far as that goes.

batuhanicoz|parent|prev|next|

WordPress has been around for a long time, and there is no change to how open it is. It is GPL code, Automattic is not forking it and selling access to the fork.

We are just asking WP Engine to contribute back to the project that they are basing their entire business on.

This is primarily a trademark infringement issue, we asked them to give back to be able to use the trademark we have the license for.


ceejayoz|root|parent|next|

> This is primarily a trademark infringement issue…

There’s a pretty standard way of fighting those out.


DonnieBurger|root|parent|prev|next|

Are you going to be "just asking" other businesses as well? Or does it only apply to competitors of Automattic?

batuhanicoz|root|parent|next|

As long as competitors of Automattic does not infringe on the trademarks owned (in the case of WooCommerce) or licensed (WordPress) by Automattic, I don't see any reason for us taking any action.

I would personally ask everyone to at least try to contribute back to the open source projects they rely on though.


prox|root|parent|next|

Honestly I tried at one point, but the community was rather hostile and unwelcoming.

I help out with Godot sometimes and it’s far more welcoming and low friction.


robjwells|prev|next|

Here's Matt Mullenweg's post on Wordpress.org announcing this: https://wordpress.org/news/2024/09/wp-engine-banned/

There is some further discussion in the HN thread on the WP Engine incident: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41655578


martin_a|parent|next|

I don't understand what the actual problem is. What did WPEngine do to use "wordpress.org resources"? That article is very... non-informative.

robjwells|root|parent|next|

I believe in this instance he’s referring to WP Engine installations of WordPress pulling from the WP.org plugin & theme registries.

There is a longer story in which Mullenweg has claimed that WP Engine does not contribute sufficiently to the WordPress open-source project, and that the use of “WP” in their name supposedly created confusion and infringes the trademarks of the WordPress open-source project. WP Engine disputes this.

Of course the elephant in the room is that Mullenweg is the CEO of a rival for-profit WordPress host (Automattic), but has made his claims against WP Engine from his position in the open-source WordPress project.

Perhaps a board of non-Automattic WordPress project people would come to the same conclusions about WP Engine, but the current situation reeks of conflict of interest.

Ultimately the ones paying the price here are the users of WP Engine-hosted WordPress installations, who have been cut off from plug-in and theme updates with no warning.


miki123211|root|parent|next|

WP Engine is also claiming that Mullenweg tried to "extort" them. He allegedly asked WP Engine to pay astronomical amounts of money to WordPress, or he'd go on a smear campaign against them. THe demands were allegedly refused, and it seems that he has indeed started such a campaign.

The claims were made in an official letter to Automattic that included proof in the form of screenshots, and that was written by a legal professional[1]. I personally think it's unlikely that an actual lawyer would risk their reputation and fabricate something like that.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41631912


Terretta|root|parent|next|

> He allegedly asked WP Engine to pay astronomical amounts of money to WordPress...

If we use the word “astronomical” to represent a percentage of profits, what word do we use to describe the profits?


ceejayoz|root|parent|next|

WP Engine asserts they demanded "a significant percentage of its gross revenues", not profits. I'm not sure we know what their margin is.

JimDabell|root|parent|next|

Matt Mullenweg confirmed:

> They had the option to license the WordPress trademark for 8% of their revenue, which could be delivered either as payments, people (Five for the Future .org commitments), or any combination of the above.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1fnz0h6/cease_de...


ceejayoz|root|parent|prev|next|

> I personally think it's unlikely that an actual lawyer would risk their reputation and fabricate something like that.

The various disbarred folks from Trump’s 2020 legal team serve as a pretty effective counter example.


chuckadams|root|parent|next|

Trump is notorious for not paying his lawyers, so as representation goes, he’s left with a bag of mixed nuts to say the least.

fortyseven|root|parent|prev|next|

"How much can I poison the well of public opinion about my high paying client and get away with it."

whizzter|root|parent|prev|next|

Conflict of interest, perhaps. Reading about the issues though, gimping the product for pennies and then modifying customers sites to censor things.

At some point, every bad behaviour in a software ecosystem affects other parties and even if his personal role does cause a conflict of interest all the things mentioned seems to point to a party that doesn't respect the ecosystem.

Reminds me of the whole Elastic search vs Amazon stuff that seems to have mellowed down now. https://www.elastic.co/blog/elasticsearch-is-open-source-aga...


martin_a|root|parent|prev|next|

I see. What a BS. It's obvious that this is a business move by Automattic.

Akismet was (is?!) bundled with every fresh WP installation. That is a product by Automattic, so why is it bundled with the Open Source "product"? It's an unfair competitive advantage over every other company/person that provides a plugin for that. Nobody cared or was just feared to pick up that fight.

Drawing the line at WPEngine seems random, too. There are so many bigger or smaller competitors in that space, it's just somewhat random to pick them out and complain that they don't give back.

Lousy move.


asmor|root|parent|prev|next|

Automattic also has a very direct competitor in Pressable - who are currently running a WP Engine contract buyout promotion in their header.

Horrid look.


technion|root|parent|prev|next|

Imagine aws offers a hosted node application service.

Then, because aws doesn't give anything back, npm blocks the aws ip range, and suddenly existing aws customers can't install modules or security updates.

That's pretty much what happened here. I get the "you should give back" ideal, but make no mistake, this is because wp engine is eating their lunch.


cies|root|parent|next|

Automattic offers more than just the source code of WP.

Anyone is still free to use the source, but the services they provide are not free.

> Imagine aws offers a hosted node application service. Then, because aws doesn't give anything back, npm blocks the aws ip range, and suddenly existing aws customers can't install modules or security updates.

It's a good analogy. AWS does it a lot, but it does so with open source projects that do not have much paid services. Reading from the article, Automattic provides many services (possibly paid, in some freemium model).

I'd welcome if some projects manage to get AWS to give back. They do way too little if you ask me.

> I get the "you should give back" ideal, but make no mistake, this is because wp engine is eating their lunch.

Yes. Giving back could be a deal that involves money.


danillonunes|root|parent|next|

I understand it would be ideal for business to give back with money to open source projects, but this issue is being handled in the worst possible way by Matt.

So WordPress code is FOSS, so you can theoretically change the code, except when you change the line that will keep revisions to cut your costs, if you do that he will yell at you.

WordPress' repository is free as in beer, you can download all you want without paying. Heck, even WP code is setup so it downloads from there by default. Except when you happen to host in a company that has a very specific set of issues (alleged trademark issues + profits over a particular threshold + not giving back to community; other companies who have only one of those issues but not all of them are fine), then he'll block you.

The main issue here is the lack of a clear contract of what you can or cannot do. Seems like he is just figuring out the rules along the way. This gives to external observers the impression that the whole thing is unreliable.


consteval|root|parent|next|

Open source makes absolutely zero distinction about how the source code is provided. You aren't required to keep a free-to-use service up to download your code. You only must produce it when requested.

Not too long ago you would pay for disks containing open source software.


asmor|root|parent|prev|next|

This is the equivalent of NPM, Maven or PyPi cutting off an enterprise artifact repository because they don't donate enough to keep those services running. Especially the lack of notice makes it an unprofessional garbage move.

cies|root|parent|next|

Does the notice need to be public? They are fighting for a while, I think WPEngine knew what Automattic demanded (and hence could foresee what happens if they continue). They were/are probably already working on an alternative.

mastazi|prev|next|

The community should fork Wordpress so that is no longer controlled by Automattic, thus eliminating the conflict of interest. They would have to pick a different name, such as LibrePress (just like LibreOffice vs OpenOffice), in order to avoid copyright or trademark claims by Automattic.

seriocomic|parent|next|

Kind of been done (in a minor protest against the change to the back-end editing system: https://www.classicpress.net/

stock_toaster|prev|next|

Interview with Matt Mullenweg about his side in all this a little bit ago:

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6F0PgMcKWM


silverliver|prev|next|

From an operational standpoint, this is completely WP Engine's fault. You should not depend on other people's services, doubly so if they're public and free, when your big as Wordpress Engine is. Wordpress is completely within its rights, morally or otherwise, to block free access to its services.

The silver lining here is that this will force them to do the right thing by their customers and host their own shit.


progmetaldev|prev|next|

Am I in the minority where I hope that this creates a larger ecosystem of open-source content management systems? I use Umbraco because I am effectively given a blank slate to create any type of website I wish, and it doesn't come with any templates or document/content types by default. I've put an enormous amount of work into customizing the software, prior to there being decent documentation (yet the best documentation is the actual code, which I've studied for over a decade). My sales people still have to regularly fight the "why not Wordpress?" question from business leaders, even though I can run on less than the minimum requirements, and am able to provide security fixes quickly while keeping everything in Git. I would hazard that my solution is more custom tailored to individual clients, without needing to jump through hoops, and can break down individual parts of a page into easier to reason about properties (textbox for page title, RTE for general page content, custom sidebar content pickers for reusable sidebar content).

Back in 2013 when I got started with Umbraco, it was more about trying to emulate what users wanted from Wordpress, but over the years it became more about a custom tailored experience for each type of "content" one might want to create in a website. "Posts" that allow categorization, tagging, and listing in date/time order. Company directories that list individual company profiles, which have a profile thumbnail and full-size image, fields that can be labeled on an index page for things like phone, email, fax, etc. while also providing a full profile page for further details. Photo and video galleries, that make it easy for an end user to paste in YouTube videos, or link to a photo thumbnail and full-sized image with a lightbox effect, but also a full page for SEO purposes.


btown|parent|next|

Part of the value proposition of Wordpress is that it doesn't depend on a single developer or team having decades of deep knowledge of a system like Umbraco; any number of contractors can be parachuted in, at least in theory, to take over a site design if the content is in Wordpress. I would venture to say that many companies opting for Wordpress know that they don't have a culture that can retain devs with decades of experience, and value the popularity of a platform like Wordpress... even if the assumptions it's based on, in regards to rendering Images and Words in specific ways, are far from ideal and indeed introduce varying degrees of inner turbulence.

(Nice username, btw!)


progmetaldev|root|parent|next|

I agree, and thank you for the username shout-out! In the past I would agree with you about Umbraco, and I guess I still partially agree because Wordpress is in PHP which is easier to learn, modern Umbraco should be very easy to learn. Part of that is probably that I favor making things very explicit and easy to read, over performance benefits. For a CMS, there aren't a TON of performance benefits other than not pulling all your data from the CMS in your view templates. This is very common in Umbraco code, but often the same code works in services called by one-liner controllers. I still write mostly MVC code, but have written my own "to-disk" caching layer, as well as built APIs to make use of Cloudflare to do per-page or global cache-breaking.

I went from learning .NET/ASP.NET, to my current employer in 2007 using PHP and some esoteric languages/runtimes (HTML/OS from Aestiva was what I started using, as my boss knew it well). I learned design patterns and was able to make an ass out of all the code fitting in design patterns anywhere I could, because these initial sites got very little traffic. Over time, I moved to other languages, and searched out the easiest to read way to perform anything only rewriting for very critical pieces of code that needed high-performance. 98% of sites roughly, do not need that (but I work on mostly commercial informational websites for corporations).

I know that doesn't totally dismiss the usage of Wordpress, but my usage of .NET is intentionally very minimal unless there is a major performance impact with more esoteric parts of the language (which a normal .NET dev would not consider esoteric, BTW, just confusing for a beginner dev). Most of the code I write is just mapping the field names from content items to objects of the document type that's being accessed/I need to render. Being strongly typed is a nice benefit, and I've done a lot of work with working through garbage collection. I can usually run a large website at approximately 200MB, with the application consistently running. Throwing the solution at a junior would be bad, but I could give a high-level overview in 15 minutes, with an hour telling juniors where to look for further information (plus being happy to mentor for those that want to dig deeper).


Raed667|prev|next|

TBH i don't mind this, open-source means you can use the code, but you're not entitled to infra and services.

batuhanicoz|parent|next|

Infra, services and trademarks. They are not part of the GPL license. Everyone is welcomed to use any GPL code as they see fit, as long as they are within their limits as outlined in the license.

But this does not mean W.ORG has to keep providing these free services to you and your customers, and it does not mean you are free to use trademarks in a misleading way.

Disclaimer: I work at Automattic.


subarctic|root|parent|next|

I only know about this from the two hn threads I've read, but it seems like he could have at least announced this publicly a week in advance or so and given them a bit of time to self-host all this stuff before cutting off their access. Right now seems like he's trying to harm WPEngine by harming their customers and that doesn't make him look good.

sharphall|root|parent|prev|next|

Would it be a good or bad look for the Fedora project if they went after a popular and commercially ruthless hosting provider offering "Fedora Hosting" for trademark infringement, while cutting off repo and update access to that provider specifically, unless they paid up some % of revenue?

Regardless of if Fedora was justified or not, it would totally destroy trust in the ecosystem and people would start to talk about seeking alternatives, which is exactly what is happening with WordPress.


csomar|root|parent|prev|next|

Then the registry URL has to become null and the user has to enter a registry of his choice when installing wordpress.

evantbyrne|root|parent|prev|next|

I don't think it is at all reasonable to claim that the name of a GPL 2.0 project is off-limits. This license goes back to 2003 and the name is the first word in the license. It is displayed all over the software. The community is full of commercial and open-source tools that include variations of the name. Automattic is betraying the spirit of the license at best, and I would _hope_ flat-out wrong legally to weaponize the name.

mikeyinternews|root|parent|prev|next|

I've been a WPE customer for about 3 years and have never been confused by the "WP" in their name.

trvr|root|parent|next|

It's not about WP in the company name. It's about loosely using the words "Wordpress" and "WooCommerce" all over their website in ways that violate trademarks.

graeme|root|parent|next|

Could you please explain in which way trademarks were violated? Nominative use is explicitly allowed according to long established caselaw.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_use


trvr|root|parent|next|

I'm not a lawyer, but WP Engine is selling products on their website literally named "Core Wordpress". That seems like it might be a violation.

graeme|root|parent|prev|next|

For there to be a violation there has to be a reasonable prospect of consumer confusion by the consumers in the target market. The page is labelled "Choose your WordPress Hosting plan"

Someone who is in the market for Wordpress hosting is almost certainly aware they have Wordpress and that they need hosting for it. Wordpress is a nominative use to refer to the entity, and Core is an adjective which in context means central.

Do you actually think there are meaningful numbers of people who have believed that WPEngine is actually wordpress itself? That would be the standard. Wordpress.com leads to much more confusion on a regular basis.


trvr|root|parent|next|

"Do you actually think there are meaningful numbers of people who have believed that WPEngine is actually wordpress itself?"

Yes.

"Wordpress.com leads to much more confusion on a regular basis."

Wordpress.com has a license to use the Wordpress trademark. I don't believe we should be comparing Wordpress.com to WP Engine here.


graeme|root|parent|next|

Fair enough on wordpress.com. It still doesn't strike me as plausible that any reasonable person in a purchasing decision thinks WPengine is wordpress itself. I certainly haven't seen any such confusion online.

samatman|root|parent|prev|next|

I just found out today that WPEngine is not the same legal entity as WordPress.

So yeah, from my perspective there's a real case for confusion of marks here.

I have no opinion about the drama one way or the other, just providing a datum.


seb1204|root|parent|prev|next|

Would you agree that WPE automatically makes a mental connection to WordPress? I dare say this would not be the case if it was named Josh Mutton Engine JME

asmor|parent|prev|next|

If you integrate your code to have hard dependencies on a third party server that is provided for free, that's as much part of an implicit social contract as is channeling a subset of earnings back at a project if you're successful. So it may be okay in this instance, but the no notice part is still bad.

WordPress used to not even have a way to have plugins and themes that didn't ask to be updated via WP.org - so you could provoke an update to someone's private plugin if you knew its name. I know because I filed the bug that lead to it being fixed.

But everything in this instance is making Matt and his company look bad. Their complaint seems to be that revisions are not enabled by default on WP Engine and this is somehow breaking the core philosophy of WordPress and the few bytes of text WP Engine saves are supposedly profit seeking, not a performance problem as WP Engine claims.

Additionally, one of Matt's commercial ventures, Pressable, is currently offering to buy out your WP Engine contract if you switch to them. Breaking a competitors product and then offering to buy out their customers should be a red flag in choosing an open source solution.


Raed667|root|parent|next|

I don't have a dog in this fight, but if you built a multi-million business around that code, it is just sane for you to patch the code so that your core business doesn't 100% depend on someone else's free service (plugin marketplace hosting for example)

This entire situation screams drama but I can see where Matt is coming from, even though he could have handled things with more grace.


seb1204|root|parent|next|

I also don't have a dog in the fight but reading for a few minutes I have the impression there have been previous attempts to engage with WPE to contribute. I might be wrong.

pier25|prev|next|

It's weird Matt would generate all this drama. By not allowing WP Engine to use the plugin ecosystem he is first and foremost damaging the actual WP users hosting there. Probably millions of users.

ModestoBorn|prev|next|

I'm a WordPress (WP) developer and avid user of WP Engine. I just tested some of my WordPress sites hosted on WP Engine and can confirm that it's currently not possible to take some actions that pull data from https://wordpress.org/, such as not updating WP plugins or installing new WP plugins.

I'm furious at Matt Mullenweg and Auttomatic, as they control wordpress.org as Auttomatic hosts wordpress.org and one or both of them probably decided to block some important WordPress features on WP Engine servers. Also below is text from the https://wordpressfoundation.org/ homepage:

[quote]

The WordPress Foundation is a charitable organization founded by Matt Mullenweg to further the mission of the WordPress open-source project: to democratize publishing through Open-Source GPL software.

...

People and businesses may come and go, so it is important to ensure that the source code for these projects will survive beyond the current contributor base so that we may create a stable platform for web publishing for generations to come.

[/quote]

After this event, Matt Mullenweg needs to be blocked from being involved with WordPress.org and the development of WordPress open-source software.

Since this probably won't happen, WP Engine (and other WordPress web hosts and developers) need to create their own mirrored https://wordpress.org/ source to download plugins and update the WordPress core.

I know this is a big job, but Matt Mullenweg and Auttomatic can't be trusted anymore not to block the WordPress functionality of another company, not just WP Engine.


Zamiel_Snawley|parent|next|

I think that is exactly Matt’s problem with the conduct of WP Engine—they have done next to nothing to support the infrastructure that they profit from.

It’s like a person who uses ad block saying they won’t watch YouTube if google breaks the ad blocking. That is exactly what they want, you have negative value.


sfmike|prev|next|

Emphasizes that build on another platform even one that claims a healthy ethos and open source you can be cutoff and left to die in the cold.

vouaobrasil|prev|next|

I've used Wordpress self-hosted for a long time and this seems like a non-issue. WPEngine can use the Wordpress codebase but why should they be entitled to the services provided by Wordpress? I say this is a good thing.

yreg|parent|next|

> why should they be entitled to the services provided by Wordpress?

They are not entitled to them, but Wordpress has previously decided to offer those services. Wordpress donors most probably expected that these services will continue to be provided to anyone.

The controversial part is that now they apparently establish a policy that Matt Mullenweg (the owner of for-profit Wordpress.com) can arbitrarily ban competitors in case he doesn't like them.


batuhanicoz|root|parent|next|

WordPress.org (the service that banned WP Engine) is not funded by donors. WordPress Foundation is the non profit entity that has donations.

yreg|root|parent|next|

Isn't WordPress.org connected to WordPress foundation? They have a Donate link in the footer.

What about all of these: "user login system, update servers, plugin directory, theme directory, pattern directory, block directory, translations, photo directory, job board, meetups, conferences, bug tracker, forums, Slack, Ping-o-matic, and showcase" – are all of those services provided by WordPress.org without funding from WordPress foundation?


batuhanicoz|root|parent|next|

> are all of those services provided by WordPress.org without funding from WordPress foundation?

As far as I am aware, this is correct.


paulgb|root|parent|prev|next|

Interesting, so then who pays to run wordpress.org?

I notice a donate link in the footer, which goes to the foundation, but to your point, the foundation seems to avoid saying outright that the funding goes to running .org (instead saying that Matt has been involved with them) https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/


batuhanicoz|root|parent|next|

WordPress.org is operated by Matt Mullenweg as a free service that hosts plugins, themes, docs and more. It does not take donations, or as far I am aware, make any profits.

Instead, people are encouraged to donate to the Foundation, which helps with the development of WordPress the software and organizes things like WordCamps.


JimDabell|root|parent|next|

Wait, so if somebody goes to WordPress.org, clicks the donate button, arrives at a page to donate to the WordPress Foundation, and donates, that money does not go towards funding WordPress.org?

The blurb on the donation page reads:

> Money raised by the WordPress Foundation will be used to ensure free access to supported software projects, protect the WordPress trademark, and fund a variety of programs.

“Supported software projects” is a link that leads to a page that lists these software projects:

- WordPress

- WordPress Plugins

- WordPress Themes

- bbPress

- BuddyPress

It sure looks like the WordPress infra and plugins are supported by the donations from the WordPress.org footer link. If the money is going elsewhere, where is it going?


KomoD|root|parent|prev|next|

So why is it hosted on IP addresses associated with the foundation?

    %rwhois V-1.5:003eff:00 rwhois.singlehop.com (by Network Solutions, Inc. V-1.5.9.5)
    network:Class-Name:network
    network:ID:ORG-SINGL-8.198-143-164-0/24
    network:Auth-Area:198.143.128.0/18
    network:IP-Network:198.143.164.0/24
>>> network:Organization:The Wordpress Foundation

    network:Street-Address:660 4TH ST # 119
    network:City:SAN FRANCISCO
    network:State:CA
    network:Postal-Code:94107
    network:Country-Code:US
    network:Tech-Contact;I:NETWO1546-ARIN
    network:Admin-Contact;I:NETWO1546-ARIN
    network:Abuse-Contact;I:ABUSE2492-ARIN
    network:Created:20171214
    network:Updated:20171214

snowwrestler|root|parent|next|

The funniest outcome to this little internecine WP fight would be an IRS investigation into the intermingling of Wordpress.org, Foundation, Automattic, Matt, etc.

jacooper|root|parent|prev|next|

This is stupid, something like WordPress.org should obviously be under the foundation, as it's an essential part of the entire wp ecosystem.

swores|root|parent|prev|next|

I believe that you're mistaken and have flipped them the wrong way round: Wordpress.org is the official website of the open source project owned by the WordPress Foundation, while WordPress.com is the company owned by Automattic.

https://wordpress.org/about/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WordPress#WordPress_Foundati...

https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automattic


batuhanicoz|root|parent|next|

I work at Automattic, owner of WordPress.com.

I asked how WordPress.org is funded and will get details on that but I can tell you WordPress.org is not part of the foundation.

Open source project and the WordPress trademark are owned the WordPress Foundation. WordPress.org has a license to use the name from the Foundation, as does Automattic.


slyall|root|parent|next|

So you have:

Wordpress.org which is directly controlled by Matt Mullenweg

Automattic (ie wordpress.com) whose CEO is Matt Mullenweg

and The WordPress Foundation which is run by (checks notes) Matt Mullenweg

Yet you seem to think we should treat all three of those entities (Matts?) as separate and independant


poincaredisk|root|parent|next|

We should expect the non profit foundation to be independent from the for profit company, yes.

swores|root|parent|prev|next|

The WordPress Foundation links to wordpress.org as the official site for their project called WordPress, and wordpress.org directs donors to donate at wordpressfoundation.org so it's hard to see how you could be right, but if you can come back explaining that then I'll happily admit to having been confused by it all.

batuhanicoz|root|parent|next|

Projects page of the Foundation (https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/) does not say those projects belong to the Foundation. It states:

> Matt Mullenweg, the director of the WordPress Foundation, has been directly involved in the creation of, or coordination of volunteers around, a number of WordPress projects that espouse the core philosophy

I'll admit this might sound confusing. Foundation came years after some of these projects were already established.


KomoD|root|parent|next|

They do link to wordpress.org outside of that.

https://wordpressfoundation.org/contact/

says "a violation of our domain policy." and links to wordpress.org, why would their domain policy be on a site that isn't theirs?

And then wordpress.org says "For various reasons related to our WordPress trademark", how can wordpress.org say "our" if the foundation owns the WordPress trademark and .org is not run by the foundation?

> Projects page of the Foundation (https://wordpressfoundation.org/projects/) does not say those projects belong to the Foundation. It states:

But their site does say that money raised will be "used to ensure free access to supported software projects, protect the WordPress trademark, and fund a variety of programs." and links to the projects page that contains wordpress.org... but you said it isn't funded by the donations from the foundation


danillonunes|root|parent|prev|next|

Ironic how this whole thing started with an allegation that WP Engine makes things confusing. I wonder if Matt's mom can tell the difference between WordPress Foundation and WordPress.org.

ceejayoz|root|parent|prev|next|

If https://www.gatesfoundation.org/ had a page titled "Projects" that listed "death camps" as the first item, you would assume they're up to something, right?

tiffanyh|prev|

Slight OT: I thought WordPress.com migrated away from using “WordPress” nearly a decade ago (to a custom nodejs app)

https://wordpress.com/blog/2015/11/23/the-story-behind-the-n...


maxloh|parent|

So basically they are not WordPress too.