FAQ: The WP Engine and WordPress Controversy

What happened between WordPress and WP Engine?

Matt Mullenweg, co-founder of WordPress and CEO of Automattic (which owns WordPress.com), publicly criticised WP Engine, a prominent WordPress hosting provider, for their lack of contribution to the WordPress open-source project despite building a billion-dollar business on it.

Mullenweg claimed that WP Engine’s branding is confusing for users, potentially violating WordPress trademarks, and demanded they either significantly increase their contributions to the WordPress Foundation or pay an 8% royalty fee for commercial trademark use.

When WP Engine refused, Mullenweg used his control over WordPress.org to temporarily block WP Engine servers from accessing plugin and theme updates. This action sparked a significant backlash due to the impact on WP Engine customers, who were unable to update their sites.

Is WP Engine legally obligated to pay WordPress?

This is complex. While WP Engine uses WordPress’s open-source software, which is free to use and modify under the GPL license, trademark usage is separate.

• Open Source Software (WordPress.org): Governed by the GPL license, which doesn’t mandate royalty payments or code contributions, even for commercial entities.
• Trademarks (WordPress name and logo): Owned by the WordPress Foundation. Using trademarks in a way that implies affiliation or endorsement requires licensing.

Mullenweg argued that WP Engine’s branding, which heavily features the term “WordPress,” creates confusion about their affiliation and necessitates a commercial license. Whether WP Engine’s branding legally constitutes trademark infringement is unclear.

Why is Mullenweg’s request for 8% controversial?

Critics argue that Mullenweg’s actions resemble extortion or a “shakedown,” using his control over WordPress.org to pressure WP Engine into a deal that benefits his for-profit company, Automattic.

• Conflation of Entities: Mullenweg effectively controls both the non-profit WordPress Foundation (trademarks) and for-profit Automattic (WordPress.com), blurring the lines between open-source software and commercial interests.
• Lack of Transparency: Mullenweg’s claim that he asked WP Engine to contribute for “years” wasn’t substantiated, and his calculation of WP Engine’s contributions appears one-sided.
• Punishing Users: Blocking updates, even temporarily, negatively impacted WP Engine customers, many of whom were unaware of the dispute and became collateral damage.

What are the concerns about Matt Mullenweg’s power over WordPress?

This situation highlighted concerns about the concentration of power within the WordPress ecosystem, with Mullenweg effectively controlling key aspects of the project despite its open-source nature.

• Unchecked Authority: Mullenweg’s ability to unilaterally block a major hosting provider from accessing critical updates raises concerns about potential abuse of power.
• Conflict of Interest: His control over both WordPress.com and the WordPress Foundation creates a significant conflict of interest, as decisions that benefit one could negatively impact the other.
• Calls for Governance: Many in the WordPress community are calling for more transparent governance structures and a clear separation between the open-source project, the WordPress Foundation, and Automattic to prevent future conflicts.

Could WP Engine continue operating without using the WordPress name?

Theoretically, yes. WP Engine could fork the WordPress codebase (allowed under the GPL) and rebrand their service, avoiding any trademark issues. However, this is risky and potentially damaging:

• Technical Challenges: Forking a project as large and complex as WordPress is a significant undertaking, requiring substantial resources and potentially leading to compatibility issues.
• Brand Recognition: Losing the “WordPress” name would impact their brand recognition and likely require significant marketing efforts to rebuild their identity.
• Ecosystem Impact: Such a move could fracture the WordPress community and create uncertainty among users about the future of the platform.

What does this mean for the future of open source?

The dispute raises questions about the sustainability of commercially successful projects built on open source:

• Contributor Incentives: Should successful businesses built on open-source software be obligated to contribute back financially or through code?
• Governance Models: How can open-source projects maintain independence and avoid conflicts of interest when commercial entities become heavily involved?
• Trademark Protection: Balancing trademark protection with the open nature of software is crucial to prevent abuse while fostering innovation.

This situation highlights the need for open and transparent dialogue within the open-source community to address these challenges and ensure the continued success of projects like WordPress.