[AnonC]

This whole incident (with the information from texts and posts shared in the “Cease and Desist” letter by WP Engine) makes Matt seem like a disgruntled person who’s after another company because his ego is hurt when his efforts to extort money from it failed. This doesn’t do any good to the reputation of Automattic or WordPress.

If this goes to court, I hope WP Engine wins, not because it’s a good open source participant (it doesn’t seem to be one) but because Matt’s angle here seems to twist facts and history.

On a tangential note, I personally wouldn’t use WP Engine because I think it’s quite expensive compared to similar WordPress hosting offerings from other companies (which in turn could be expensive compared to self-hosting).

[keane]

Correct me if I have the timeline wrong but is my assessment correct that this played out roughly:

1) Matt creates WordPress under GPL, his friend coins the software’s name, Matt creates a company to offer commercial services of it, and registers the trademark. (2003—2006)

2) Automattic donates the trademark to a Foundation while retaining an unlimited license to the marks for commercial use and is designated to enforce and sublicense the marks. (2010)

3) The Foundation makes the trademark widely available for noncommercial uses and available for limited commercial uses, within guidelines. (2010)

4) WP Engine uses the Foundation’s marks for commercial purposes. (2010—2024)

5) WP Engine is informed that their current use exceeds the parameters of the limited policy and that they need to come into compliance with the policy, commit to specific contributions to the noncommercial project, or acquire a sub-license from the exclusive unlimited use licensee. (2024)

6) WP Engine refuses all three options.

7) Matt issues an ultimatum that he will clown on WP Engine at a conference for the noncommercial project by announcing that WP Engine won’t commit to any of the three options (unless they can commit to one of them before he is slated to give his remarks).

8) Without a change, Matt makes this announcement.

9) WP Engine threatens legal action against the commercial licensee? And issues a legal hold on the trademark owner for potential discovery? So that they can continue using the trademark owner’s marks?

Comments like yours that malign Matt for “extortion” (a criminal offense) seem reckless to me.

[Kye]

Correction on 1: he forked a GPL project (b2/cafelog). He had no choice but to release it under GPL if he wanted to release it at all. It's a very long ago piece of history that, while acknowledged by WordPress in its history pages, doesn't seem well-known.

People who don't know sometimes present it as some grand act of charity for the good of open source. It was just what you did.

[keane]

>Correction

Aware of the fork, “creates” still applies.

>It was just what you did.

Contemporary projects at the time were Movable Type and Blogger, both proprietary. You didn’t have to contribute to open source: it was a philosophy.

[handfuloflight]

Don't forget the part where Automattic invests money into WPEngine, 13 years ago.

[keane]

I’m not sure that data point constitutes evidence that anyone was opposed to commercial uses of the mark that avoided creating confusion around the mark and the project.

[handfuloflight]

WPEngine can likely show there hasn't been a material change in their marketing dress since that investment was made that would constitute active confusion on their behalf.

[keane]

I’m imagining they weren’t calling themselves "The most trusted WordPress platform" and "The Most Trusted WordPress Tech Company" 13 years ago. 'Trusted' can be read with the meaning 'seen as trustworthy' rather than the meaning 'utilized' which could be found to be creating confusion.