4 ms·

WordPress doesn't like products/orgs that offer services related to WordPress using "WP" in their name to imply affiliation with WordPress. WordPress has recent

WordPress doesn't like products/orgs that offer services related to WordPress using "WP" in their name to imply affiliation with WordPress. WordPress has recently updated their terms of use to reflect this. Matt is also on record criticizing WP Engine for never having donated to the WordPress Foundation. This is all coming to light after the breakdown of licensing negotiations between Automattic and WPEngine EDIT: https://www.therepository.email/mullenweg-threatens-corporate-takeover-of-wp-engine https://www.therepository.email/mullenweg-threatens-corporat...

unsnap_biceps 2y ago
This is a bit of after the fact complaining. Matt invested in WPEngine for many years and it was a-okay then for them to use WP, and in fact WP's own terms said WP was a free to use term for everyone. That was only changed when the legal squabbles started. The main legal issues are around using "WordPress" and "WooCommerce"
FireBeyond 2y ago
> Matt is also on record criticizing WP Engine for never having donated to the WordPress Foundation. Donate, perhaps. Sponsor? The Foundation event where Matt "went nuclear" last month was sponsored by WP Engine to the tune of $75,000. And was one of many donations this year. (Adding insult to injury, the "independent" Foundation banned WP Engine from attending the event they were sponsoring... because they were in dispute with Automattic.)
- dylan604 2y ago
  There's a difference between sponsoring an event and donating to the operations of the core project. I know nothing about the specifics on the event, but I've done events where $75,000 would almost cover the cost of the stage. I've also seen events where the cost of the event was covered by sponsors many times over.
  - FireBeyond 2y ago
    There is. But Matt's BS "They've done nothing for WordPress but leech and freeload and give back nothing to the community" is patently false. Don't even start me on how "President of the WordPress Foundation, Matt Mullenweg", accepted their sponsorship check and then disinvited them from the event because they were in a conflict with "President of Automattic, Matt Mullenweg", and wouldn't even return the sponsorship check. In essence, if nothing else, that makes it a donation, because they sponsored the event, but got nothing for their sponsorship except knowing they... uhh... contributed to the community.
  - lsaferite 2y ago
    The foundation doesn't even contribute to core development anyway. Check out their yearly financial reports. In Matt's world, the only 'donation' that would directly support development would be to the commercial entity Automatic who is a direct competitor.
ceejayoz 2y ago
> WordPress has recently updated their terms of use to reflect this. That’s… a very odd way of portraying this. The policy, for like a decade, was: “The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit.” https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1foknoq/the_wordpress_foundation_trademark_policy_was/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1foknoq/the_word...
- i_am_jl 2y ago
  Sure, allow me to clarify. Matt voices a number of grievances including WP Engine's changes to WordPress, their use of the term "WP", their donation/sponsorships, and more. At first glance they all seem a bit silly. The important context, in my opinion, is that this comes after the breakdown of a licensing agreement between WP Engine and Automattic, an agreement that would've seen tens of millions of dollars paid to Automattic by WP Engine for a license that WP Engine does not think they need. To put a point on it, none of the things WP Engine is accused of doing were problematic before the breakdown of licensing negotiations or the filing of WP Engine's lawsuit.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    But they explicitly say, and have for years, that “WP” can be used by anyone for any purpose. You can’t turn around and try to enforce that.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - i_am_jl 2y ago
      >But they explicitly say, and have for years, that “WP” can be used by anyone for any purpose. >You can’t turn around and try to enforce that. I'm not sure what you mean. WordPress is quite clearly turning around and trying to enforce that. It's a shakedown, the whole point is to force WP Engine back into licensing talks. A bulletproof legal foundation isn't necessary, just a legitimate complaint that can force WP Engine into court.

unsnap_biceps 2y ago

This is a bit of after the fact complaining. Matt invested in WPEngine for many years and it was a-okay then for them to use WP, and in fact WP's own terms said WP was a free to use term for everyone. That was only changed when the legal squabbles started. The main legal issues are around using "WordPress" and "WooCommerce"

FireBeyond 2y ago

> Matt is also on record criticizing WP Engine for never having donated to the WordPress Foundation. Donate, perhaps. Sponsor? The Foundation event where Matt "went nuclear" last month was sponsored by WP Engine to the tune of $75,000. And was one of many donations this year. (Adding insult to injury, the "independent" Foundation banned WP Engine from attending the event they were sponsoring... because they were in dispute with Automattic.)

dylan604 2y ago
There's a difference between sponsoring an event and donating to the operations of the core project. I know nothing about the specifics on the event, but I've done events where $75,000 would almost cover the cost of the stage. I've also seen events where the cost of the event was covered by sponsors many times over.
- FireBeyond 2y ago
  There is. But Matt's BS "They've done nothing for WordPress but leech and freeload and give back nothing to the community" is patently false. Don't even start me on how "President of the WordPress Foundation, Matt Mullenweg", accepted their sponsorship check and then disinvited them from the event because they were in a conflict with "President of Automattic, Matt Mullenweg", and wouldn't even return the sponsorship check. In essence, if nothing else, that makes it a donation, because they sponsored the event, but got nothing for their sponsorship except knowing they... uhh... contributed to the community.
- lsaferite 2y ago
  The foundation doesn't even contribute to core development anyway. Check out their yearly financial reports. In Matt's world, the only 'donation' that would directly support development would be to the commercial entity Automatic who is a direct competitor.

ceejayoz 2y ago

> WordPress has recently updated their terms of use to reflect this. That’s… a very odd way of portraying this. The policy, for like a decade, was: “The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit.” https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1foknoq/the_wordpress_foundation_trademark_policy_was/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1foknoq/the_word...

i_am_jl 2y ago
Sure, allow me to clarify. Matt voices a number of grievances including WP Engine's changes to WordPress, their use of the term "WP", their donation/sponsorships, and more. At first glance they all seem a bit silly. The important context, in my opinion, is that this comes after the breakdown of a licensing agreement between WP Engine and Automattic, an agreement that would've seen tens of millions of dollars paid to Automattic by WP Engine for a license that WP Engine does not think they need. To put a point on it, none of the things WP Engine is accused of doing were problematic before the breakdown of licensing negotiations or the filing of WP Engine's lawsuit.
- ceejayoz 2y ago
  But they explicitly say, and have for years, that “WP” can be used by anyone for any purpose. You can’t turn around and try to enforce that.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - i_am_jl 2y ago
    >But they explicitly say, and have for years, that “WP” can be used by anyone for any purpose. >You can’t turn around and try to enforce that. I'm not sure what you mean. WordPress is quite clearly turning around and trying to enforce that. It's a shakedown, the whole point is to force WP Engine back into licensing talks. A bulletproof legal foundation isn't necessary, just a legitimate complaint that can force WP Engine into court.