This might be the end of WordPress

What sparked the conflict between WordPress and WP Engine?

The conflict between WordPress and WP Engine began to heat up after a keynote address by Matt Mullenweg at WordCamp. During his speech, Matt, the co-founder of WordPress, accused WP Engine of various practices that he believed were detrimental to the WordPress ecosystem. Among the accusations was the claim that WP Engine was confusing users through its branding. Matt argued that many individuals mistakenly thought WP Engine was officially associated with WordPress due to its name.

Another significant point of contention was WP Engine's practice of disabling post revisions by default on their hosted WordPress sites. Matt claimed this undermined the core promise of WordPress to manage and protect user content. Additionally, he criticized WP Engine for its lack of substantial contributions to the WordPress project, mentioning that the contributions from WP Engine were minimal compared to what Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com, offered.

In short, the controversy erupted from allegations of misleading branding, failure to contribute adequately to the WordPress initiative, and technical decisions like disabling post revisions. This multifaceted dispute has potentially far-reaching implications for the broader WordPress community.

How did WP Engine respond to the accusations?

WP Engine quickly issued a response to Matt Mullenweg’s accusations. They defended their contributions to the WordPress ecosystem, emphasizing their decade-long commitment to advancing the platform. According to WP Engine, they invest heavily in sponsorships, education, and development tools. They pointed to events like Decode and tools such as FOSS.js and WP GraphQL as examples of their contributions.

Moreover, WP Engine argued that their sponsorship of WordCamps and other community events highlights their dedication to fostering creativity and supporting WordPress developers. They also firmly rejected the notion that their branding is intended to confuse users or mislead them into thinking they are officially associated with WordPress.

Faced with claims that they disable post revisions to save costs, WP Engine clarified that the feature can be enabled by contacting their support. They maintained that their approach is designed to balance performance and storage efficiency, and it can be adjusted according to user needs.

In summary, WP Engine's response was to underline their significant investments in the WordPress community and to refute any notion of intent to deceive or undermine the user experience.

What are the main points of contention?

• Disabling Post Revisions: Matt criticized WP Engine for turning off post revisions by default. He argued this undermines WordPress's core promise of managing and protecting user content.

• Lack of Contributions: Another major issue is the perceived lack of significant contributions from WP Engine to the WordPress project. Matt pointed out that WP Engine's contributions pale in comparison to those of Automattic.

• Trademark Misuse: Matt accused WP Engine of confusing users with their branding. He claimed that many individuals mistakenly believe WP Engine is officially associated with WordPress, thus misusing the WordPress trademark.

What legal actions have been taken?

The conflict between WordPress and WP Engine escalated quickly into legal territory. WP Engine issued a cease and desist to Matt Mullenweg and Automattic on September 23rd. They accused Matt of issuing threats and demanded that he stop his public attacks. WP Engine highlighted the damage to their reputation and business caused by Matt's actions and extreme rhetoric.

In response, Matt and Automattic issued their own cease and desist on September 24th, focusing on trademark issues. They accused WP Engine of unauthorized use of the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. Matt demanded that WP Engine immediately stop using these trademarks, alleging that their use misled consumers and damaged the WordPress brand.

Both sides showed an unwillingness to back down, with their demands reflecting deep-rooted issues and mutual animosity. The legal battle introduces complexities that could have far-reaching ramifications for the WordPress community, particularly around trademark use and contribution expectations.

What are the potential implications for the WordPress community?

The ongoing conflict between WordPress and WP Engine poses several risks for the broader WordPress community. This debate could significantly increase user confusion due to the mixed messaging from both parties. When even experts spar over the nature of contributions, branding, and technical choices, everyday users might struggle to discern which platforms and practices best serve their needs.

Additionally, the legal actions taken by both parties could set troubling precedents for other hosting providers. Smaller companies might feel pressured to avoid using WordPress naming conventions or risk similar trademark disputes. This could stifle innovation and lead to a chilling effect where businesses hesitate to engage with or contribute to the WordPress ecosystem out of fear of legal repercussions.

Lastly, this internal strife could distract from collaborative efforts to improve WordPress itself. Instead of focusing on enhancing the platform, key stakeholders are embroiled in a public feud. This division can hinder progress and potentially degrade the quality of services offered to all users. In essence, the community may face a future of fragmentation and reduced cooperation, threatening the core principles that have made WordPress a ubiquitous tool for web development.