https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GYPsyoSbwAACO7X?format=jpg&name=...
Furthermore, apparently Automattic invested money into WP Engine in 2011? Since the principals of Automattic and the Wordpress Foundation are the same, why did they not call trademark violations then (or negotiate a royalty deal for the use of the marks)?
https://techcrunch.com/2011/11/15/silverton-automattic-put-1...
This whole thing is bizarre.
His post about WP Engine not being real wordpress because they disable post revisions to save space is also strange, someone on Reddit mentioned WP Engine has been doing that for over 11 years, so it's not something new. (WordPress.com also reduces features unless the user pays for a higher plan) Automattic was an early investor in WP Engine even, and was seemingly fine with this until now?
Automattic originally registered the trademark. They donated it to the Foundation and retained the exclusive unlimited license for commercial purposes.
edit: I did not address the investment component of the parent comment, as that was added after my comment was posted
> 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.
This is kind of a wild change. And the change of tone about "WP" aside, it is very strange to make complaints like this on a trademark policy page of all places.
This whole thing is very bizarre and not a great look.
Take a look at the Red Hat Trademark guidelines page, which is based on the Model Trademark Guidelines (CC-BY-4.0) designed for the open-source community. They explicitly mention that you cannot “Use the Red Hat Marks in a way that expresses or implies sponsorship or endorsement by, or affiliation or a relationship with Red Hat when one does not exist.” They also remind you that “Red Hat, at its sole discretion, may terminate or modify your permission at any time. Red Hat retains and reserves all rights to the Red Hat Marks and their use, including the sole right to modify these Guidelines, with immediate or later effect.”
If the WordPress Foundation had explicitly included a similar reminder would you still find the change “wild”?
https://www.redhat.com/en/about/trademark-guidelines-and-pol...
https://wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Cease-and-De...
There's two sides to every story but sincerely, something seems... very wrong.
The Wordpress foundation is Matt. Automattic is Matt. For all the pomp and circumstance, Wordpress is just Matt doing whatever he wants unchecked. Hence the trademark pages of the Wordpress website mysteriously changing today to reflect the version of reality needed to make this case stronger.
Wrong? Maybe. Consistent? Yes.
If this goes to court, I hope WP Engine wins, not because it’s a good open source participant (it doesn’t seem to be one) but because Matt’s angle here seems to twist facts and history.
On a tangential note, I personally wouldn’t use WP Engine because I think it’s quite expensive compared to similar WordPress hosting offerings from other companies (which in turn could be expensive compared to self-hosting).
1) Matt creates WordPress under GPL, his friend coins the software’s name, Matt creates a company to offer commercial services of it, and registers the trademark. (2003—2006)
2) Automattic donates the trademark to a Foundation while retaining an unlimited license to the marks for commercial use and is designated to enforce and sublicense the marks. (2010)
3) The Foundation makes the trademark widely available for noncommercial uses and available for limited commercial uses, within guidelines. (2010)
4) WP Engine uses the Foundation’s marks for commercial purposes. (2010—2024)
5) WP Engine is informed that their current use exceeds the parameters of the limited policy and that they need to come into compliance with the policy, commit to specific contributions to the noncommercial project, or acquire a sub-license from the exclusive unlimited use licensee. (2024)
6) WP Engine refuses all three options.
7) Matt issues an ultimatum that he will clown on WP Engine at a conference for the noncommercial project by announcing that WP Engine won’t commit to any of the three options (unless they can commit to one of them before he is slated to give his remarks).
8) Without a change, Matt makes this announcement.
9) WP Engine threatens legal action against the commercial licensee? And issues a legal hold on the trademark owner for potential discovery? So that they can continue using the trademark owner’s marks?
Comments like yours that malign Matt for “extortion” (a criminal offense) seem reckless to me.
People who don't know sometimes present it as some grand act of charity for the good of open source. It was just what you did.
I work for a company (aiven.io) which offers hosted services mostly for OSS products. All of our products are always called “Aiven for…” to prevent confusion, and there’re strict rules in place about that. It’s always “Aiven for ClickHouse(R)”, never just “ClickHouse”.
How is this determined?
EDIT: changed consumer confusion from "obvious" to "perceived"--I have no idea whether these examples were obvious, and it would likely depend on your own perceptions.
It would be great to see more court tested clarity on trademarks used in Open Source - both abuse and fair use.