Yes its nice if people contribute back. It is however optional. Not just in the well-technically sense, but in the broader moral sense.
If you give something away for free, wait for someone to build a business around it, and then say, well actually its not free, there are strings: that is unethical. That is a bait and switch.
If you want to sell a project, than you should sell it. If you want to make it open source, then don't be surprised when people use it as such. You can't just change the terms of the deal because one of the companies using your open source product happens to make a bunch of money.
If wp-engine want to change customers for access to that it's not unreasonable to expect a contribution.
If they went about it in a fair and equal manner, sure. So far the public evidence looks like the access denial is retalitory or perhaps even an attempt at extortion over the larger dispute.
The api may not be part of tje GPL, but it still seems like they offered it freely and encouraged people to use it with no expectation of anything in return. Encouraging someone to use X, then getting mad at them over something unrelated, and abruptly cutting off X with no public notice is pretty unprofessional. Given their corporate structure, maybe even illegal.
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.
1. I create an Amazon Lightsail server set up using the Wordpress image as described here [1].
2. I get a virtual server somewhere, install Debian, do "apt install wordpress curl apache2 mariadb-server", and configure things as described here [2].
3. I get a shared hosting account at some place that includes cPanel or something similar, and install Wordpress through that.
4. I get a server, maybe virtual or maybe physical, install a Linux distribution, and install Wordpress by downloading the zip file from https://wordpress.org/download/ and following the install instructions linked that page.
5. I get an account at WP Engine and use their hosting service.
How much variation is there between these different ways I might set up a Wordpress site when it comes to how much load my site places on the Wordpress autoupdates infrastructure?
[1] https://aws.amazon.com/getting-started/hands-on/launch-a-wor...
If a commercial entity is allowed to control a non-profit and direct it toward ends that gain it profits, that isn't really a non-profit. Is the WordPress Foundation taking actions in accordance with its mission or is it taking actions at the behest of Automattic? If it's the latter, that seems like a breach of its non-profit status. It's not a non-profit if it's just a division of Automattic set up to further Automattic's profits.
Yes, infrastructure costs money and if the WordPress Foundation wanted to charge for access, that could certainly be reasonable. However, the charges would need to be reasonable and consistent with its non-profit mission and not created in a way to harm one of Automattic's competitors, not to benefit Automattic, etc.
And the current actions feel like a major breach of the WordPress Foundation's missions and statements. Literally, their website still tells people to use "WP" as a generic term. "For various reasons related to our WordPress trademark, 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" (https://wordpress.org/about/domains/). They'd explicitly disclaimed any ownership of "WP" as a trademark.
And now Automattic is directing the WordPress Foundation to harm a competitor that Automattic thinks is taking profits from them. To me, it seems like the government needs to look into whether Automattic's relationship with the WordPress Foundation is legal. IANAL, but it seems like the WordPress Foundation is violating its non-profit status. If I created a non-profit whose mission was to make money for my for-profit company and harm my competitors, that doesn't seem legitimate.
Mullenweg started criticizing WP Engine. Those criticisms have some legitimacy. WP Engine wants to be a free-rider on the ecosystem - just as AWS wants to take popular open source projects and offer them as a service while taking profits from those actually developing the software. WP Engine sent a cease and desist to Automattic and Automattic sent one back. But now Automattic is using the WordPress Foundation to punish WP Engine. The WordPress Foundation should be supporting its non-profit mission, not the profit motives of Automattic.
I get Mullenweg's position: WP Engine is trying to make lots of money off the software that Automattic has been putting the hard work into. But that's what happens with open-source. You get free riders. I think it's fine to try and publicly shame them. However, it feels like they've crossed a line by essentially making the WordPress Foundation an arm of Automattic's for-profit. Maybe it's legal (IANAL), but then what's the point of any software foundation if it can just be controlled by a for-profit company to help the for-profit and harm competitors? Shouldn't the non-profit have to take actions that further its non-profit mission?
In fact, Automattic's letter to WP Engine doesn't say that WP Engine should be paying the WordPress Foundation. It says that WP Engine should be paying tens of millions a year to Automattic.
I hate defending WP Engine because Mullenweg's criticism has legitimacy. Free riders making tons of money are crappy actors in open-source communities. At the same time, the WordPress Foundation shouldn't be an arm of Automattic and it's hugely problematic for the foundation to punish WP Engine like this.
One is contributing back, which is not required by any license and second is rate limits
Including TFA, everything I've seen from their camp is a hodge-podge of conflicting claims: they say WPE isn't obligated to contribute anything, but also they're taking action because they haven't. Then they say access to wordpress.org is something they provide free to the community, but also they took away WPE's access to it, then restored it, and the fact that customers were affected is WPE's fault. Then there's a trademark dispute involved somehow - which seems to be their only actionable claim, but has no apparent connection to the stuff they're angry about, or what they want to change.
As a disinterested observer, it looks like Automattic asked WPE to contribute more FTEs to the OSS project, but were rebuffed, and are now doing random things that are within their power to retaliate. I don't think that's their intended messaging, but it's sure how it looks.
Its not just that it is unrelated. It also seems very weak. Like they are trying to claim the letters WP as a trademark? IANAL but i strongly suspect that wouldn't fly in court.
As far as I've been able to tell, WP Engine have contributed back. Before this spat they were noted on WordPress.org as contributing 5% of their resources to the WordPress project[0], they have their own open-source projects (e.g: [1]), and sponsor WordPress events. What WP Engine allegedly refused to do was sending tens of millions of dollars to Matt's for-profit company.
I'd like to see this at least addressed rather than just repeating that WP Engine supposedly contributed nothing. Is it that they scaled back contributions just recently? Is it that 5% (plus events/etc.) isn't sufficient?
> Look at the following list of words and try to find the intruder:
> wp-activate.php, wp-admin, wp-blog-header.php, wp_commentmeta [...] wp engine [...] wp-trackback.php, wp_usermeta, wp_users
> Well, all the ones that contain an underscore _ are names of the WordPress core database tables. All the ones that contain a dash - are WordPress core file or folder names. The one with a space is a company name…
Using "WP" in their name is branding allowed by the WordPress Foundation's trademark policy[2]. Not a lawyer, but I don't believe confusion stemming from uses that are permitted by the trademark holder count against them legally, else "WordPress.com" would be in far more trouble.
[0]: https://web.archive.org/web/20240524210250/https://wordpress...
[1]: https://github.com/wpengine/faustjs
[2]: https://web.archive.org/web/20240901224354/https://wordpress...
Maybe Matt's not going about it the way everyone wants him to, but at least he's trying to do something about this parasite.
(I’m taking the original claim at face value for the sake of argument.)
Before they started hosting their websites with me, all my customers shared a common complaint: they were paying companies like WP Engine and EIG a significant amount of money for a subpar hosting platform. They all expressed dissatisfaction with their websites’ slow performance and the lack of customer support. They struggled to identify what to look for in a WordPress host and often ended up choosing the first result they found in a Google search for “best WordPress host” (exaggeration).
This context partly explains why I support Matt’s decision to target WP Engine. However, my overall agreement with Matt’s choice stems from my belief that open-source projects are only successful when people contribute back. While licensing doesn’t obligate contributors, it’s undeniable that successful businesses rely on the initial creators and subsequent contributors of the project.
While I don’t necessarily agree with Matt’s specific methods, I believe there are likely better ways to address predatory companies like WP Engine that harm the community and Automattic’s reputation far less. I’ve come across some excellent ideas in this thread.
This is definitely not about subpar hosting for Matt.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_International_Group 1. https://wptavern.com/matt-mullenwegs-ecosystem-thinking-for-... 2. https://wptavern.com/matt-mullenweg-identifies-godaddy-as-a-...
It's high time for a hard fork of WordPress, run by grownups.
It’s strange that you can, in the first section, decry the situation of a company opting out of something that is optional on the basis of it being part of an unspoken social contract, and then later in the same article defend your own side’s decision to opt out of their part of an unspoken social contract because it is optional.
I also can’t help but keep going back to - if the founders view is that enterprise users, hosting companies, every business who’s name starts with R, or some other selection of users needs to contribute some resources to the project, why doesn’t the license say that? The argument being made takes for granted that the social contract here is common sense, but that’s not true. This is exactly why licenses exist - to clearly define these lines and avoid ambiguity.
If it’s not in the license, the presumption (legal _and_ ethical) is that it’s intended to be optional. If a company is trying to compel behavior, does that line up with it being optional?
There is no requirement for companies like WP Engine to contribute to Wordpress. Zero. Mullenweg and his side admit as much.
And let's be real -- it's about the money. How many times have Mullenweg and co mentioned WPE's revenue in a discussion that's ostensibly about open source contributions? Otherwise, the Automattic rhetoric would be structured around "if WP Engine just contributes x hours a year of work then we'd drop the dispute." But we all know that's not true.
It's just sour grapes from Automattic, which is getting beaten by a competitor.
Until there's some legal obligation for WPE to contribute back to Wordpress, this is all nonsense.
This is making Automattic look thin-skinned and inept. They're going to lose a lot of credibility with their partners, if they haven't already. Anyone who actually watched Matt's talk knows it was disastrous. Someone in his circle needs to intervene and get him to drop this awkward, ill-advised and ultimately ineffective strategy.
And given MM's behavior, at this point there's also zero incentive.
Quoting the referenced article:
1. Contributing to WordPress
So here’s my question: what do you think of a company that, with close to half a billion dollars in revenue, and more than a thousand staff, barely contributes the equivalent of one full-time employee to the project on which it has built the entirety of its value?
My opinion of this doesn't matter. What I would like to know is this: Are all companies that profit from WordPress being held to the same standard, or is this specifically measured against WP-Engine for some particular reason? Either way, I don't believe this is relevant as its opinion, and as the author themselves state, there is no actual obligation to contribute.
2. Trademark confusion
This is why the confusion that WordPress.com may generate and the one that other company generates are not one and the same.
According to WebArchive, this was a policy change made on September 24th -- the same day that all of this kicked off.
Original Text: https://web.archive.org/web/20240924024555/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.
When in doubt about your use of the WordPress or WordCamp name or logo, please contact the Foundation for clarification.
New Text: https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/:
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.
If you would like to use the WordPress trademark commercially, please contact Automattic, they have the exclusive license. Their only sub-licensee is Newfold.
For non-commercial use, you can contact us here at the Foundation.
Ignoring the out-of-place dig at WP Engine in the new text, there was a clear language change and as an outsider, it seems as though there was no notice communicated or given -- but, there is no obligation to do so.
It originally stated "you are free to use it in any way you see fit" and WP Engine did so. While the author of the text is welcome to make the change as necessary, the text also explicitly states that "WP" is not covered my trademark and the new language makes a request. I haven't seen any prior public communication or notice about such a change -- that doesn't help the perception from the Wordpress Foundation.
3. Access to WordPress.org
Here’s a company benefiting from a free resource they are not entitled to. That actually charges their customers for that free service ($3/month to activate auto-updates, something that is free on WordPress), and when they lose access to the free resource, blames others.
Why are they not entitled to benefit from an opensource project so long as they are abiding by the license? If the Wordpress Foundation has an issue with this, they should have chosen an license that applied the appropriate restrictions. They lost access because the Wordpress Foundation blocked their access without prior communication and in a, seemingly, unprecedented manner.
While not referenced in the article, I have seen claims made that WP Engine places a disproportionate load on the Wordpress infrastructure. I think it would be fair to ask them to contribute or run their own mirrors, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that such a conversation took place prior to restricting access.
--
As I mentioned, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the only actual footing that Automattic has here is potentially around the Trademark policy, of which it is only "WordPress", NOT "WP". Could WP Engine maybe rework some wording on their website or something? Sure. If there was a disagreement, it should have been handled in court, not in the way its currently being handled.
I don't think either party is morally in the clear -- but legally, that doesn't matter. I do think Automattic and the WordPress Foundation (both run by Matt Mullenweg) are approaching solving this problem in possibly the worst way possible and seem surprised about the negative response that they are getting.
I do think there seems to be an obvious conflict of interest between Automattic and the WordPress Foundation -- The WordPress Foundation seems to be punishing WP Engine for a legal dispute between Automattic and WP Engine. I suspect that this is due to a lack of Governance structure around the WordPress Foundation that other large opensource foundations have -- even moreso based on the public postings of members of the WordPress community that have been blindsided by the actions the WordPress Foundation have taken seemingly without any kind of discussion or communication within the Foundation.
Disclaimer: my opinions are that of my employer.
So, "What the heck is going on with WordPress?" IE, does anyone have any links that explain what happened in a neutral, unbiased (within reason) manner?
IE, I certainly respect the opinion in the linked article, but I'm so new to the story that I'm not comfortable agreeing or disagreeing with the points in the article.
