Matt Mullenweg, the founder of WordPress, makes it clear that he has a say in the future of WordPress with the statements he has made in recent weeks. As head of both WordPress.com and its parent company Automattic, Mullenweg also controls the WordPress.org project and the foundation that manages the platform’s commercial rights. But this consolidation of power has become even more controversial, especially with its dispute with WP Engine, a third-party WordPress hosting service.
Mullenweg argues that this structure is important to maintain the long-term health of WordPress. Stating that WordPress.org offers an open source platform independent of Automattic, a commercial organization, Mullenweg said in an interview with The Verge that this independence will not allow the platform to be used for commercial interests. In particular, the tension over WP Engine’s use of the WordPress brand shows how this balance has been disrupted.
Dispute with WP Engine
Mullenweg claims that WP Engine does not contribute enough to the WordPress ecosystem. In his opinion, it is an ethical responsibility, although not an obligation, for companies like WP Engine to contribute to WordPress’s open source community. The allegation that WP Engine tried to steal commissions from Automattic by “hacking” the WooCommerce plugin owned by Automattic further deepens this debate. While WP Engine denies this accusation, Mullenweg claims that the company “corrupted” WordPress’ open source code and expanded its commercial interests without contributing to the development of the platform.
Mullenweg argues that WP Engine is violating Automattic’s trademark by using the name “WordPress” for commercial purposes. In light of these controversies, WP Engine’s access to WordPress.org servers was disrupted, leaving its customers unable to update WordPress themes and plugins. Mullenweg emphasizes that although WordPress is open source and free, successful projects must give back to the community and states that WP Engine does not contribute enough to this.
In his calls to the community, Mullenweg asked them to boycott WP Engine and stop using this service. He even described WP Engine as “a structure that harms the WordPress ecosystem.” This creates uncertainty about how not only WP Engine but also other projects in the WordPress ecosystem will be affected.
Mullenweg’s campaign against WP Engine is not just a commercial dispute, it also raises important questions about how the rules will shape up in the open source world. While WP Engine accuses Automattic and Mullenweg of pressuring them with “excessive demands”, Mullenweg highlights the issue of proper use of trademarks in this process. Automattic changed its rules regarding the use of the WordPress name, citing “misleading changes” made by WP Engine, and made it clear that these changes were aimed at WP Engine.
The seven-year agreement offered by Automattic included a requirement to pay 8 percent of WP Engine’s revenues in exchange for the right to use WordPress and Automattic’s WooCommerce trademarks. However, Mullenweg stated that this deal is no longer on the table due to WP Engine’s “misleading behavior and incompetence.”
This dispute escalated further with WP Engine’s lawsuit against Automattic and Mullenweg. While WP Engine accuses Mullenweg of making “greedy demands,” Mullenweg is allegedly “preparing for war.” WP Engine claims that Mullenweg recommended other WordPress hosting services to put pressure on them and tried to gain a commercial advantage in the process.
Finally, this tension was not limited to commercial rights. There was also turmoil within Automattic’s internal structure. WordPress’ executive director Josepha Haden Chomphosy and more than 150 of her employees reportedly left the company because they did not support Mullenweg’s policy against WP Engine.
Regardless of how this case turns out, the future of WordPress and its effects on the structure of the open source community are likely to be debated for a long time. This process, in which Automattic strengthens its control over WordPress, also raises questions about the independent and open source nature of the platform.