The part that is so weird to me is that Automattic (Matt is the CEO) owns WordPress.com which is a WP Engine competitor. So many people are confused about WordPress.com vs WordPress.org (The WordPress subreddit even has a sticky about it, since so many newbies are unaware that free self hosted WP exists). Matt is saying that the WordPress Foundation (non profit) gives Automattic an exclusive commercial license to use the trademark. So, WP Engine _may_ legally be in the wrong here (despite the trademark policy saying it was okay for a decade) - but his arguments about how WP Engine is ruining WordPress, is misleading customers, and is competing unfairly is so weird considering his own company does exactly the same. I guess his moral argument is that Automattic contributes so much to the WP source code, and other companies need to be doing the same or purchase a license to support it.

His post about WP Engine not being real wordpress because they disable post revisions to save space is also strange, someone on Reddit mentioned WP Engine has been doing that for over 11 years, so it's not something new. (WordPress.com also reduces features unless the user pays for a higher plan) Automattic was an early investor in WP Engine even, and was seemingly fine with this until now?

Out of curiosity, I looked at WP Engine's website, and counted thirty uses of "WordPress" (before I stopped counting), as well as at least a few uses of "WooCommerce". I am only casually following this dispute, but WP Engine does seem to be using the branding. That said, "WordPress" may be descriptive (I'm not sure whether it is).

edit: I did not address the investment component of the parent comment, as that was added after my comment was posted

For comparison, the text of the screenshotted web page (https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/) now reads:

> 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 revenue on top of WordPress.

This is kind of a wild change. And the change of tone about "WP" aside, it is very strange to make complaints like this on a trademark policy page of all places.

This whole thing is very bizarre and not a great look.

Matt has a reputation for flying off the handle, a smaller scale Elon Musk. Matt has been trying to get WPE to contribute more to the Wordpress project for years. Last week Matt heard that WPE were pressuring employees to stay silent about WPEs internals and so he flew off the handle and started throwing everything at the wall… thus, the festering resentment towards WPE for their lack of contributions to the project became the basis of all the things he’s throwing. Demand for payment was the easiest thing in reach. That didn’t work, and now trademark infringement claim is the easiest legal-shaped thing in reach. There’s no deeper explanation than man throws things.

The Wordpress foundation is Matt. Automattic is Matt. For all the pomp and circumstance, Wordpress is just Matt doing whatever he wants unchecked. Hence the trademark pages of the Wordpress website mysteriously changing today to reflect the version of reality needed to make this case stronger.

Wrong? Maybe. Consistent? Yes.

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.

Where did you read about EFF involvement?

We didn't need more reasons to dislike WordPress, and now they're really working to give us a new reason. At least that's how I feel. I'd much rather just use any other CMS.

I think it's a verbose way of saying $0.

Did WP Engine generate the confusion or was it a lack of consumer understanding of the structure of the Wordpress ecosystem that did that?

So is the out for wpengine that they aren't enforcing it across the board but using it to "extort" a dollar amount that they perceive that they are owed?