5 ms·

The appropriate twist here would be to have WPEngine find a trusted third party (one or more), start a foundation together and successfully fork wordpress.

• bravetraveler 2y ago
  If not for Microsoft I'd suggest calling it "Word", no need for the Press.
  • nopakos 2y ago
    What about "Press"?
    • bravetraveler 2y ago
      I like it, a lot of room to play with things like 'imPress'
      • slyall 2y ago
        Considering this dispute already invoves trademrk confustion allegations I'd avoid the words "word" , "press" , WP" and "auto" and "matic" completely.
        • thih9 2y ago
          How about ProseWeb? Moving from WP to PW seems particularly petty; perhaps fitting in a dispute like this.
    • Ey7NFZ3P0nzAe 2y ago
      I think PressWord sounds nice
  • mrweasel 2y ago
    Just call it TextPress.
    • bravetraveler 2y ago
      Haha, I like this too. TP.
• teruakohatu 2y ago
  I think Matt would be quite happy with that. His issue is WP Engine not contributing to WordPress. If they decide to maintain a fork and infrastructure, they won't be freeloading anymore. Edit: That attracted a lot of downvotes. I was giving my option in response to the parent comment. In my option Automattic would be happy if they forked it.
  • thih9 2y ago
    If the new project offers a more stable platform, one that cannot be controlled by a single person, the community might like that more and might move; then there will be little left to freeload. Is that an option btw? I.e. is it possible to offer hosting with seamless migration from wordpress.org?
  • serial_dev 2y ago
    Where is it in the license that you need to contribute to the project if you make big bucks? We have open source licenses for a reason, contributing back is never a requirement. If you believe that is his issue, I have a bridge to sell you.
    • teruakohatu 2y ago
      > Where is it in the license that you need to contribute to the project if you make big bucks? We have open source licenses for a reason, contributing back is never a requirement. If you believe that is his issue, I have a bridge to sell you. I never said that the license forced them to contribute.
    • saaaaaam 2y ago
      Mullenweg literally said that this was his issue. That’s what kicked off the whole debacle.
      • bravetraveler 2y ago
        > his issue Very astute phrasing. Personal problem.
      • 2y ago
• lordofgibbons 2y ago
  Didn't this whole thing start because Automattic was complaining that WPEngine wasn't contributing much to the Wordpress development but competing with them for free?
  • slyall 2y ago
    That one of Matts claims. Personally I suspect the actual trigger was WPE removing Automattic's affiliate key from WooCommerce and costing them $m/y of revenue.
    • batuhanicoz 2y ago
      Our attempts at resolving trademark issues with WPE predate our discovery of the attribution removal.
      • thih9 2y ago
        What do you mean by “trademark issues”? Is this about the WP in the WPEngine’s name? If yes, what about other companies in a similar position?
        • kgeist 2y ago
          The abbreviation "WP" was initially permitted for use before they retroactively changed it a few days ago. Saying "We host WordPress" on WPEngine's site constitutes as much trademark violation as a random shoe shop listing Nike shoes in their catalog. It seems this is more about attempting to undermine a competitor, with trademark issues serving merely as an excuse.
      • closewith 2y ago
        Who is our in this context? If you are a party to this dispute, why on Earth would you comment publicly?
        • Kye 2y ago