A bitter feud is brewing in the world of website creation, pitting the founder of WordPress, Matt Mullenweg, against WP Engine, a popular hosting platform. At the heart of the dispute is the open-source nature of WordPress, which powers nearly half of all websites. While anyone can host their own WordPress site, many opt for a hassle-free solution from providers like Automattic or WP Engine.
In a scathing blog post, Mullenweg accused WP Engine of being a “cancer” to WordPress, citing their decision to disable revision history tracking by default. Mullenweg believes this feature is essential to protecting user data and accuses WP Engine of prioritizing cost savings over customer needs. He also took aim at WP Engine’s investor, Silver Lake, for not contributing sufficiently to the open-source project and for WP Engine’s use of the “WP” brand, which Mullenweg claims confuses customers into thinking they are part of WordPress.
WP Engine fired back with a cease-and-desist letter, claiming fair use of the WordPress trademark. They also alleged that Mullenweg had threatened to take drastic action against them unless they agreed to pay a significant percentage of their revenue for a license to the trademark. Automattic responded with its own cease-and-desist letter, accusing WP Engine of breaching trademark usage rules. The WordPress Foundation updated its Trademark Policy page, warning against using the “WP” abbreviation in a way that confuses users.
The situation escalated when Mullenweg banned WP Engine from accessing WordPress.org resources, causing issues for many websites and leaving them vulnerable to security attacks. WP Engine accused Mullenweg of misusing his control over WordPress to interfere with their customers’ access. The ban was temporarily lifted, but the controversy has sparked concerns among developers and providers about relying on commercial open-source products related to WordPress. The community is calling for clarity on trademark usage and fears that Automattic’s exclusive license to the WordPress trademark could be used against them.
Leave a Reply