I'm not involved in the WordPress ecosystem, but am an outsider looking in. I don't have all of the facts and am not a lawyer, so this is just my 2 cents.<p>Quoting the referenced article:<p><i>1. Contributing to WordPress<p>So here’s my question: what do you think of a company that, with close to half a billion dollars in revenue, and more than a thousand staff, barely contributes the equivalent of one full-time employee to the project on which it has built the entirety of its value?</i><p>My opinion of this doesn't matter. What I would like to know is this: Are <i>all</i> companies that profit from WordPress being held to the same standard, or is this specifically measured against WP-Engine for some particular reason? Either way, I don't believe this is relevant as its opinion, and as the author themselves state, there is no actual obligation to contribute.<p><i>2. Trademark confusion<p>This is why the confusion that WordPress.com may generate and the one that other company generates are not one and the same.</i><p>According to WebArchive, this was a policy change made on September 24th -- the same day that all of this kicked off.<p>Original Text: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20240924024555/https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20240924024555/https://wordpress...</a>:<p><i>The abbreviation “WP” is not covered by the WordPress trademarks and you are free to use it in any way you see fit.<p>When in doubt about your use of the WordPress or WordCamp name or logo, please contact the Foundation for clarification.</i><p>New Text: <a href="https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/" rel="nofollow">https://wordpressfoundation.org/trademark-policy/</a>:<p><i>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.<p>If you would like to use the WordPress trademark commercially, please contact Automattic, they have the exclusive license. Their only sub-licensee is Newfold.<p>For non-commercial use, you can contact us here at the Foundation.</i><p>Ignoring the out-of-place dig at WP Engine in the new text, there was a clear language change and as an outsider, it seems as though there was no notice communicated or given -- but, there is no obligation to do so.<p>It originally stated "you are free to use it in any way you see fit" and WP Engine did so. While the author of the text is welcome to make the change as necessary, the text also explicitly states that "WP" is not covered my trademark and the new language makes a <i>request</i>. I haven't seen any prior public communication or notice about such a change -- that doesn't help the <i>perception</i> from the Wordpress Foundation.<p><i>3. Access to WordPress.org<p>Here’s a company benefiting from a free resource they are not entitled to. That actually charges their customers for that free service ($3/month to activate auto-updates, something that is free on WordPress), and when they lose access to the free resource, blames others.</i><p>Why are they not entitled to benefit from an opensource project so long as they are abiding by the license? If the Wordpress Foundation has an issue with this, they should have chosen an license that applied the appropriate restrictions. They lost access because the Wordpress Foundation blocked their access without prior communication and in a, seemingly, unprecedented manner.<p>While not referenced in the article, I have seen claims made that WP Engine places a disproportionate load on the Wordpress infrastructure. I think it would be fair to ask them to contribute or run their own mirrors, but I haven't seen any evidence to support that such a conversation took place prior to restricting access.<p>--<p>As I mentioned, I'm not a lawyer, but I think the only <i>actual</i> footing that Automattic has here is potentially around the Trademark policy, of which it is only "WordPress", NOT "WP". Could WP Engine maybe rework some wording on their website or something? Sure. If there was a disagreement, it should have been handled in court, not in the way its currently being handled.<p>I don't think either party is morally in the clear -- but legally, that doesn't matter. I do think Automattic and the WordPress Foundation (both run by Matt Mullenweg) are approaching solving this problem in possibly the worst way possible and seem surprised about the negative response that they are getting.<p>I do think there seems to be an obvious conflict of interest between Automattic and the WordPress Foundation -- The WordPress Foundation seems to be punishing WP Engine for a legal dispute between Automattic and WP Engine. I suspect that this is due to a lack of Governance structure around the WordPress Foundation that other large opensource foundations have -- even moreso based on the public postings of members of the WordPress community that have been blindsided by the actions the WordPress Foundation have taken seemingly without any kind of discussion or communication within the Foundation.