WordPress Vs WP Engine: What’s Going On?

At the time of writing (October 2024), WordPress vs WP Engine is ongoing, as they are locked in a conflict that has sent shockwaves through the WordPress community. The conflict and subsequent controversy quickly escalated from a blog post to legal threats, technical bans, and public outcries, creating ripples that could potentially affect the roughly 472 million websites that use WordPress, their owners, and their developers.

Origin of The Conflict: The Blog

WordPress is a free, open-source Content Management System (CMS) founded in 2003 as a blogging platform. It is heavily influenced by Automattic, which contributes significantly to its core software development and maintenance. The platform currently powers over 43% of all websites on the Internet, and a large community of users and developers contribute toward it, whether using the platform, or developing themes and plugins.

The conflict centers around Matt Mullenweg, WordPress co-founder and CEO of Automattic, over business practices and copyright issues with WP Engine, which provides WordPress hosting services and backed by a private equity firm Silver Lake.

The controversy erupted in September when Mullenweg publicly criticized WP Engine in a blog post for disabling the revision history feature in its plans. This limits users’ ability to track changes to their content and protect data in theory to save money on data storage. Which is kind of a big deal when you’re paying for something that is built-in and free.

He also expressed concerns about WP Engine’s use of WordPress trademarks, specifically the “WP” brand, which he believes confuses customers into thinking WP Engine is officially associated with the WordPress Foundation.

Mullenweg also took a shot at Silver Lake, questioning their contributions to the WordPress community. He suggested that rather than supporting the platform’s open-source nature the company’s focus seems to be solely on financial gain, going on to say WP Engine is a “cancer to WordPress”.

Shots fired.

The Legal Battle Begins -WordPress Vs WP Engine

What started as public criticism quickly escalated into the opening salvo of a legal battle in late September with both companies sending cease-and-desist letters and issuing statements.

WP Engine’s Response

Not taking it lying down, WP Engine responded to Mullenweg’s blog post by sending a cease-and-desist letter to both Mullenweg and Automattic, accusing them of making false and defamatory statements and demanding a retraction.

WP Engine also made allegations against Mullenweg claiming he had threatened to take a “scorched earth nuclear approach” against their company to eliminate the competition.

They also claimed fair use of the WordPress trademark and alleged Mullenweg’s actions were motivated by their refusal to agree to his demands for “a significant percentage of its revenues for a license to the WordPress trademark“.

Automattic’s Counter

Automattic countered with its own cease-and-desist letter but from a different angle. They claimed WP Engine’s use of the “WP” had violated trademark usage rules, created confusion among users, and that they had ‘profited’ from it. To be fair, one can see their point.

The WordPress Foundation, closely aligned with Automattic and responsible for overseeing the development of WordPress, then updated its Trademark Policy page.  This update targeted WP Engine specifically by including the following:

“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 revenues on top of WordPress.”

This update was significant for two reasons:

1. Directly calling out WP Engine by name, is an unusual move in trademark policy documentation.
2. It publicly called out WP Engine’s alleged lack of financial contribution to the WordPress open-source ecosystem, despite building their success on it.

This set the stage for what would become an even more contentious situation, moving from threats to something that could directly impact WordPress users.

The Ban and Community Reaction

Things took a dramatic turn when Mullenweg implemented what many users considered the nuclear option: banning WP Engine from accessing WordPress.org resources.

While WordPress core software remained available under open-source licensing, WP Engine lost access to critical WordPress.org functionality. Specifically, the services that distribute updates, as they are not covered under the same open-source license.

This meant that their customers can no longer use the built-in automatic plugin and theme update feature, inevitably leading to broken sites and possible security gap exploits. Users could still access the plugin and theme repository on WordPress.org, but performing updates would require them to be implemented manually or use alternative methods.

The aggressive nature of the ban with no warning received heavy (to say the least) criticism, with some feeling it prioritized the dispute over user experience and WordPress website security. Many WP Engine users felt caught in the crossfire, as they were suddenly unable to maintain their WordPress sites’ security and functionality, and in turn possibly affecting their income, and who can blame them?

It also raised questions and concerns about Mullenweg’s ability to exert complete control over access to WordPress.org, thus leading to accusations of using WP Engine customers as a form of ‘leverage’ in the dispute.

A Ceasefire Gets Called (Kind of)

The WordPress community’s reaction ultimately helped play a role in temporarily lifting the ban. In a surprising move, on September 27,Mullenweg lifted the ban on WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org resources. This allowed WP Engine to resume using the built-in automatic update features for plugins and themes.

Just in case you thought it was going to be that easy, this reprieve was short-lived. Mullenweg set an October 1 deadline for WP Engine to comply with specific demands, including updating its footer and disclaimers to clarify its relationship with WordPress.

He published another blog, clarifying his stance, and that the battle was with WP Engine and the WordPress trademark, as well as outlining the conditions for the temporary lift of the ban.

He emphasized the open-source nature of WordPress and their offer of a trademark licensing deal. It consisted of WP Engine paying 8% of its gross revenues per month as a royalty fee or salary payments for employees working under WordPress.org for using WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. This was rejected by WP Engine. However, according to him, WP Engine had been “stringing them along” without any resolution for a long time.

On September 30, WP Engine updated its website footer with a clear disclaimer about its relationship with WordPress as part of its compliance with Automattic’s conditions.

“WP Engine is a proud member and supporter of the community of WordPress® users. The WordPress® trademark is the intellectual property of the WordPress Foundation, and the Woo® and WooCommerce® trademarks are the intellectual property of WooCommerce, Inc. Uses of the WordPress®, Woo®, and WooCommerce® names in this website are for identification purposes only and do not imply an endorsement by WordPress Foundation or WooCommerce, Inc. WP Engine is not endorsed or owned by, or affiliated with, the WordPress Foundation or WooCommerce, Inc.”

Additionally, WP Engine also announced that it had developed its own solution for updating their most popular plugins and themes so that its customers could maintain their websites without relying on WordPress.org’s resources.

This could mean that they used the temporary access window to develop an alternative solution for delivering updates such as using independent developers, third-party services, or offering easier manual download options.

They also changed the names of their hosting plans to avoid any potential confusion or misrepresentation of being directly affiliated with WordPress.

On October 7 Mullenweg announced that Automattic 159 employees (around 8.4% of the company) had quit because they disagreed with how things were being handled. They were given a severance package of $30,000 or six months’ salary, whichever was higher, and those that accepted would not be able to come back to Automattic.

Following that, he made another offer of nine months’ salary to those who could not afford to quit. This had an acceptance window of only four hours and an added term that they would be excluded from the WordPress.org community.

The situation is still developing with both parties preparing for further potential legal action against each other.

On October 18, WP Engine filed an injunction with a court in Northern California to get its WordPress.org access back and alleged abuse of power. So, we’ll see how that one goes.

Broader Implications for The WordPress Community and Ecosystem

The conflict between WordPress and WP Engine, however, has raised broader concerns and questions about the current WordPress ecosystem and its future.

It highlights the delicate balance between open-source principles and commercial interests. While WordPress is an open-source project, many businesses rely on the services built around it.

For example, what should the boundaries be between Automattic’s role in the WordPress ecosystem, while not infringing on the ability of WordPress Hosting providers, like Hosted.com to provide a stable, secure and reliable service to their customers?

The trademark protection concerns, as brought up by this incident, may also have broader implications. As WordPress continues to grow and more companies find it convenient to use the platform, the situation with WP Engine raises the question of how WordPress and Automattic can balance trademark rights with WordPress’s original open-source spirit.

The WordPress community is asking whether clearer usage guidelines, or a more distributed management system, should be used to address conflicts like the one we are seeing play out now.

Similarly, it raises questions about the centralization of power (looking at you Matt) and relying on one company to manage essential features and systems of an open-source platform. Can Automattic develop a more balanced approach for a healthy, inclusive community with clear governing guidelines?

The disruption caused by the WordPress.org ban on WP Engine, has shaken much of the community’s trust in the platform’s ability to still be a reliable, neutral platform for websites and online businesses to sustain themselves without fear of being cut off from the availability of resources.

This sudden loss of access to WordPress.org resources has highlighted what could become a bigger issue in the future: depending on third-party providers, even those who have deeply integrated themselves into an open-source platform, like WP Engine has done.

This has led to some developers to expressing concerns about relying on products and services run by WordPress.org. Going so far as to look into what steps can be taken to lessen the amount of platform dependency and ensure the stability and security of WordPress-powered websites in the future.

DISCLAIMER: Any opinions expressed herein, are solely the author’s and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the website, the company, or its employees and affiliates. E&OE.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Mullenweg’s blog post stemmed from WP Engine’s decision to turn off full revision history to theoretically save money on data storage and concerns over their use of the “WP” brand.
• Both companies escalated to legal threats, with WP Engine claiming Mullenweg demanded revenue sharing for trademark usage, while Automattic countered with trademark violation claims.
• WordPress.org’s ban on WP Engine from accessing plugin & theme updating resources directly affected their customers’ ability to update them, forcing WP Engine to eventually develop its own solution.
• WP Engine made concessions by changing its branding and adding disclaimers, while WordPress.org temporarily lifted the ban to protect the end users.
• The conflict evolved from a dispute over technical features into a larger consideration over trademark rights and the future relationship between WordPress.org, hosting providers, and the community as well as open-source platforms.

FAQs