4 ms·

It’s kind of perverse of Matt considering: A. He accuses “WP Engine” for being confusing branding. He literally owns WordPress.com; which confuses tens of thou

It’s kind of perverse of Matt considering: A. He accuses “WP Engine” for being confusing branding. He literally owns WordPress.com; which confuses tens of thousands of people on a daily basis. (“Are you on the WordPress login page?” “I swear that I am!”) B. He complains about the post revisions not being limitless. But until recently, WordPress.com had a limit of 25. C. If post revisions matter, surely plugins matter, right? WordPress.com requires going up two tiers to use any unapproved plugins. D. Matt was an investor in WP Engine, and even appeared on their podcast last year, even though this revisions system limitation has been in place for a decade? E. This is the same Matt who wrote the WordPress Bill of Rights, complete with specifically saying “The freedom to run the program, for any purpose” and “The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.” F. The same Matt who wrote in the WordPress trademark policy that “WP” is not a WordPress trademark and anyone may use it however they wish? G. The same Matt who forked B2, and if B2 was still around, would be quite vulnerable to B2 potentially complaining about Matt’s lack of contribution to them? It goes on. I hate to say it, but every sign points to Matt being a hypocrite. Even an extortionist.

yard2010 2y ago
The one who threatened to start a nuclear war when he didn't get what he wanted? He seems chill
johng 2y ago
Not to mention his text messages. It's clear that if they were willing to pay, he was willing to not even mention them in his keynote. It looks quite clear that he wanted money and was willing to let everything slide if they got it.
- keane 2y ago
  (1) The WPE C&D is, in my opinion, sloppily written, full of equivocation/fallacious reasoning. The situation is not "clear". (2) We haven't heard Matt's explanation of the text messages. (3) The WordPress name was registered in 2006 by Matt's company Automattic. In 2010 it was generously (no good deed is unpunished) transferred to a 501(c)3 and Automattic was given a license to the mark (at least in WordPress.com). According to WPE themselves: "the payment ostensibly would be for a 'license' to use certain trademarks like WordPress, even though WP Engine needs no such license". That's a potentially disputed claim: they very well may need a license as they are (currently) possibly in violation of the (generous) trademark policy by advertising services they've titled "Essential WordPress", "Core WordPress", and "Enterprise WordPress". It's unwise to malign Matt publicly – a court will be sorting out the necessity of the license.
  - etchalon 2y ago
    You don't end a trademark dispute with a blog post claiming a host utilizing a feature any sane host would utilize is a violation of some core tenant of WordPress. You end it with lawyers talking to lawyers quietly.
keane 2y ago
Have you taken a look at wpengine.com? The name WordPress is everywhere with them declaring they are "The most trusted WordPress platform", "The Most Trusted WordPress Tech Company", "[WordPress's] #1 managed provider" and that "WP Engine is the #1 platform for WordPress". The WP Engine C&D insists they're allowed to use 'WP' (as you echo) but the dispute could be partly related to this broader marketing, which possibly creates confusion (a court will likely have to decide). Edit: To your first point, Automattic, who originally registered the trademark, apparently has a license from the trademark owner (the Foundation) to use the mark (at least for that domain). https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-wordpress-foundation/ https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-wordpress-foundation/ WP Engine, by their own admission, does not have a license. It also seems odd to call Matt perverse in what seems to be a trademark dispute without any acknowledgment that he is the inventor of the software, as such the founder of the community, that his friend Christine Tremoulet coined the name, and that his company originally registered the trademark.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  WordPress’s own trademark policy states: > For example, a consulting company can describe its business as “123 Web Services, offering WordPress consulting for small businesses,” but cannot call its business “The WordPress Consulting Company.” Similarly, a business related to WordPress themes can describe itself as “XYZ Themes, the world’s best WordPress themes,” but cannot call itself “The WordPress Theme Portal.” If WordPress specifically says that using the tagline “the world’s best WordPress themes” is okay, it’s hard to show anything WP Engine has done as being unacceptable. https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ Edit, because I’m responding too fast or some nonsense: That’s an interesting point; but if that were true, Matt should have used that as his argument, after sending a polite letter first explaining that was going too far. This did not happen; and considering Matt was on their podcast and didn’t give a darn until lately, it appears to not be a real problem.
  - keane 2y ago
    The paragraph prior: >All other WordPress-related businesses or projects can use the WordPress name and logo to refer to and explain their services, but they cannot use them as part of a product, project, service, domain name, or company name and they cannot use them in any way that suggests an affiliation with or endorsement by the WordPress Foundation or the WordPress open source project. At https://wpengine.com/plans/ https://wpengine.com/plans/ they appear to offer a product/service titled/branded "Essential WordPress" with others to choose from being "Core WordPress" or "Enterprise WordPress". (mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20240921160743/https://wpengine.com/plans/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240921160743/https://wpengine....)
sureIy 2y ago
You hit the nail on the head. Who knows what put a chili up his, but this debacle has started out of nowhere and he’s not the good party here.

yard2010 2y ago

The one who threatened to start a nuclear war when he didn't get what he wanted? He seems chill

johng 2y ago

Not to mention his text messages. It's clear that if they were willing to pay, he was willing to not even mention them in his keynote. It looks quite clear that he wanted money and was willing to let everything slide if they got it.

keane 2y ago
(1) The WPE C&D is, in my opinion, sloppily written, full of equivocation/fallacious reasoning. The situation is not "clear". (2) We haven't heard Matt's explanation of the text messages. (3) The WordPress name was registered in 2006 by Matt's company Automattic. In 2010 it was generously (no good deed is unpunished) transferred to a 501(c)3 and Automattic was given a license to the mark (at least in WordPress.com). According to WPE themselves: "the payment ostensibly would be for a 'license' to use certain trademarks like WordPress, even though WP Engine needs no such license". That's a potentially disputed claim: they very well may need a license as they are (currently) possibly in violation of the (generous) trademark policy by advertising services they've titled "Essential WordPress", "Core WordPress", and "Enterprise WordPress". It's unwise to malign Matt publicly – a court will be sorting out the necessity of the license.
- etchalon 2y ago
  You don't end a trademark dispute with a blog post claiming a host utilizing a feature any sane host would utilize is a violation of some core tenant of WordPress. You end it with lawyers talking to lawyers quietly.

keane 2y ago

Have you taken a look at wpengine.com? The name WordPress is everywhere with them declaring they are "The most trusted WordPress platform", "The Most Trusted WordPress Tech Company", "[WordPress's] #1 managed provider" and that "WP Engine is the #1 platform for WordPress". The WP Engine C&D insists they're allowed to use 'WP' (as you echo) but the dispute could be partly related to this broader marketing, which possibly creates confusion (a court will likely have to decide). Edit: To your first point, Automattic, who originally registered the trademark, apparently has a license from the trademark owner (the Foundation) to use the mark (at least for that domain). https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-wordpress-foundation/ https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-wordpress-foundation/ WP Engine, by their own admission, does not have a license. It also seems odd to call Matt perverse in what seems to be a trademark dispute without any acknowledgment that he is the inventor of the software, as such the founder of the community, that his friend Christine Tremoulet coined the name, and that his company originally registered the trademark.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
WordPress’s own trademark policy states: > For example, a consulting company can describe its business as “123 Web Services, offering WordPress consulting for small businesses,” but cannot call its business “The WordPress Consulting Company.” Similarly, a business related to WordPress themes can describe itself as “XYZ Themes, the world’s best WordPress themes,” but cannot call itself “The WordPress Theme Portal.” If WordPress specifically says that using the tagline “the world’s best WordPress themes” is okay, it’s hard to show anything WP Engine has done as being unacceptable. https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/ Edit, because I’m responding too fast or some nonsense: That’s an interesting point; but if that were true, Matt should have used that as his argument, after sending a polite letter first explaining that was going too far. This did not happen; and considering Matt was on their podcast and didn’t give a darn until lately, it appears to not be a real problem.
- keane 2y ago
  The paragraph prior: >All other WordPress-related businesses or projects can use the WordPress name and logo to refer to and explain their services, but they cannot use them as part of a product, project, service, domain name, or company name and they cannot use them in any way that suggests an affiliation with or endorsement by the WordPress Foundation or the WordPress open source project. At https://wpengine.com/plans/ https://wpengine.com/plans/ they appear to offer a product/service titled/branded "Essential WordPress" with others to choose from being "Core WordPress" or "Enterprise WordPress". (mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20240921160743/https://wpengine.com/plans/ https://web.archive.org/web/20240921160743/https://wpengine....)

sureIy 2y ago

You hit the nail on the head. Who knows what put a chili up his, but this debacle has started out of nowhere and he’s not the good party here.