If WordPress is to survive, Matt Mullenweg must be removed
Matt Mullenweg faces criticism for pressuring WP Engine after a rejected licensing proposal, with calls for his removal from leadership due to concerns over ethical conduct affecting the WordPress community.
Read original articleMatt Mullenweg, the co-founder of WordPress, is facing criticism for his handling of a conflict with WP Engine, a major competitor in the WordPress hosting space. The situation escalated after Automattic, Mullenweg's company, approached WP Engine with a licensing proposal that was rejected. Following this, Mullenweg allegedly attempted to exert pressure on WP Engine by threatening to publicly criticize them during a keynote speech at WordCamp US unless they agreed to pay a significant fee. Critics argue that Mullenweg's actions reflect a misuse of power and could harm the WordPress community. The author of the blog post argues that Mullenweg's leadership is detrimental to WordPress's future and calls for his removal from any official position within the organization. The post emphasizes the need for a more ethical approach to leadership in order to ensure the survival and growth of WordPress.
- Matt Mullenweg is criticized for his aggressive tactics against WP Engine.
- The conflict began after WP Engine rejected a licensing offer from Automattic.
- Mullenweg allegedly threatened to publicly attack WP Engine unless they complied with his demands.
- The author calls for Mullenweg's removal from leadership to protect the WordPress community.
- The situation raises concerns about the ethical implications of Mullenweg's actions.
Related
WP Engine is not WordPress
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp for misleading branding and disabling the revision feature, urging users to contact support and consider alternative hosting to maintain WordPress integrity.
Matt Mullenweg: WP Engine a 'cancer to WordPress' and urges community to switch
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp US 2024 for minimal contributions to WordPress, urging users to consider alternatives, and warned that its practices could harm the WordPress ecosystem.
Matt Mullenweg needs to step down from WordPress.org leadership ASAP
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp US, calling it damaging to WordPress. His remarks led to calls for his resignation, raising concerns about his leadership's impact on the community.
WP Engine Must Win
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp US, urging users to stop using their services due to trademark disputes, which could threaten the open-source community and WordPress ecosystem's future.
WordPress Drama: From the Sidelines
Tensions between WP Engine and Automattic escalated into a legal dispute after Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine's contributions, leading to revoked API access and concerns about WordPress's future.
He thinks the world has all the historical understanding and nuance of the situation. Why would they?
This looks like a world record speedrun attempt (any%) at destroying a legacy.
It's worth noting that WPEngine looked like this all the way back in 2011: https://web.archive.org/web/20110112043959/http://wpengine.c...
They have never pretended to be anything else.
Why now, Matt?
If he were just the leader of the WordPress foundation, this whole thing would just be an embarrassing PR failure. As it is, I wonder if his actions will rise to the level of criminal.
After watching his interview with The Primeagen, it seems like he is mentally wearing the clothes of a righteous prophet…the misunderstood advocate of a disrespected organization.
Unfortunately, he’s ignoring the fact that he invested in WPE years ago, is CEO of a direct competitor, has publicly said he hopes WPE loses billions of dollars as a result, apparently has no proof in writing, and is pulling thousands of innocent developers into his petulant crusade.
> Afterward, I also privately shared with [ThePrimeagen] the cell phone for Heather Brunner, the WP Engine CEO, so she can hop on or debate these points. As far as I’ve heard she hasn’t responded. Why is WP Engine scared of talking to journalists live?
this is not normal.
I also loved how this was formatted, it was quite long but easy to read with a nice font.
Now, I know that's all a bit of a reach, but it's hard for me to not think asking for Matt to be removed for this reason is just like all those people who ostensibly would want public transit to be funded for all those other people who can't afford cars, until they finally got around to ripping up the street you use to drive to work every day and jacked up your taxes by $50.
But, all that said, I've also never liked WordPress at all and don't have a dog in the fight, this is just a thought experiment. However, if I had to move because my landlord eventually got screwed for not reporting my rent on their income tax, I'd be like "well sometimes that happens, was nice while it lasted but my place was a shithole, they weren't competing fairly, and they were constantly showing up to city council meetings trying to block a mid-rise from going up while I was at work paying their mortgage".
However, my question is this: has WPE given a factual rebuttal to Matt's claims? Especially, considering that their entire business is dependent on WordPress?
I am concerned that in the eagerness to judge Matt's conflict of interest, we should not throw out the baby with the bath water.
But this whole debacle is what happens when a CEO doesn't do that. There can be unexpected, company-ending results.
WordPress, the for-profit company, may be too intertwined with WordPress the 501c3 foundation. I'm not a lawyer, but a nonprofit is supposed to be very careful about how it operates. Matt's post on wordpress.org is clearly crossing the line by blending the for-profit company, with the nonprofit foundation. Perhaps it's not illegal, but it is certainly unethical.
He disabled millions of wordpress sites from being able to update/access things. Plugins.. functionality.. Sure, they don't deserve to get free API access and all that; none of that matters.
What about non-profits for animal shelters, programs like st judes, things where livelihoods depend on it and they don't even know what an API or domain name is let alone what all this stuff is about and their whole stream of operations comes crumbling down because they paid somebody to set it all up for them and all they know to do is long in to wp-admin and press 'update' and make blog posts and check their 'payments' etc and modify/add things like their woo commerce plugins?
We're smart, we know what all this means, a lot of people I come across in the real world can utilize wordpress because it's easy for them, but if I explain in depth how things work they look at me like I'm speaking a foreign language.
He doesn't care.
I don't need that question answered. I already know.
I don't have an opinion on it, but when 75% of the internet is running wordpress, have some tact.
If they worked there for that long perhaps they can provide insight into the upstreaming of issues strategy or if it was an org focus or an afterthought?
And this is not the first time he does it, so this is nothing new and he is not the only one.
Rich people and big companies do this all the time, but Matt is doing in public.
Let me guess you want another Mark Zuckerberg in there?
What's wrong with you people? He needs a stern talking to, not complete removal. This is another re-occuring case of "create hero, destroy hero" where the public likes to build someone up, find a flaw with them, act like they are irredemable, act like you're so distraught and hurt by their behavior, cry your tears, and destroy the hero you once celebrated.
EDIT: Yep - https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/19/automattic-tc1-origin/
He’s got to go.
>Five for the Future asks that if you benefit from WordPress, you give back 5% of your time directly to that open-source project
As someone that semifrequently has to support WP installs, I would definitely make a case for it not being a benefit in my life
The first thing I think cannot be neglected to be mentioned in posts about the dispute is that (1) Matt created the project (yes, a fork counts), (2) his friend coined the name, (3) Matt's company originally registered the trademark. Then (4) Matt's company donated the mark to a foundation to make it widely available for noncommercial use while they retained the exclusive commercial license to the mark. No mention of this in this presentation.
To be fair to commentators, part of the trickiness surrounding this dispute is an old issue regarding open source projects: do the open source software licenses imply a trademark license? The answer is generally understood to be: no. Having a license to software does not grant you a license to a trademark. For more on this I found illuminating the 2009 article in the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review by Tiki Dare JD (Director of Trademarks at Sun Microsystems, Inc.) and Harvey Anderson JD (General Counsel of the Mozilla Corporation) titled "Passport Without A Visa: Open Source Software Licensing and Trademarks": https://www.jolts.world/index.php/jolts/article/view/11/37
As one is not given a license to the trademark, a common understanding is that one can:
– limit one's use of the trademark to nominative or descriptive fair use (A)
– use the mark under supplemental guidelines from the trademark owner (B)
– acquire a dedicated license to the trademark (C)
At https://wpengine.com/plans (take your screenshots now) they have titled services they offer simply "Core WordPress", "Essential WordPress", and "Enterprise WordPress". It could be claimed this branding exceeds nominative use. It is far beyond the mentioned descriptive use of a "managed WordPress hosting company". If this branding exceeds fair use, it needs to comply with justifications (B) or (C). It very clearly does not comply with the published guidelines, both before and after recent modifications, that read "All other WordPress-related businesses or projects can use the WordPress name and logo to refer to and explain their services, but they cannot use them as part of a product, project, service, domain name, or company name…". You can also see examples of use (current/cached and perhaps somewhat inadvertent) of "WordPress Engine" itself at https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awpengine.com+%22wordp...
Many commentators seem hung up on the fact that using the letters 'WP' was and remains an allowed practice according to (B). However, with regard to any trademark guidelines it could safely be assumed that a mark owner is not suggesting that one may use protected marks in ways that cause confusion as this is counter to the purpose of trademarks. Commentators are likewise hung up on the idea that the guidelines were subject to change or are despairing about the recent edits that clarified that the use of 'WP' under (B) must avoid uses that could imply the product or service were synonymous with WordPress itself. For similar open source software trademark guidelines and as a useful point of comparison, I think commentators should take a look at Red Hat's public guidelines, which explicitly remind users that guidelines like these can be changed: https://www.redhat.com/en/about/trademark-guidelines-and-pol...
Other commentators are focusing on the length WP Engine had 'WP' in their name. With use since 2010, some have implied that a statute of limitations has passed but the Lanham Act has no such time limit. These commentators don't seem to be considering Automattic's confusion claim. WP Engine has claimed in their materials that they are "The most trusted WordPress platform" and "The Most Trusted WordPress Tech Company". 'Trusted' can be read with the meaning 'seen as trustworthy' rather than the meaning 'utilized' which could be found to be creating confusion. The most [seen as trustworthy] platform would presumably be the project itself (in an expansive understanding of 'platform' that a non-technical user might perceive). If CNET started calling itself "The Most Trusted Firefox Source" I would expect The Mozilla Foundation to ask them to stop. Many commentators appear to be suggesting there should be no enforcement of the WordPress mark, which seems an unusual position, or otherwise seem to take issue with Automattic's original trademark registration in the first place.
Regardless, if WP Engine's uses of the marks exceeded rationales (A) and (B), they needed a license. This is what Matt was seeking, even allowing such a license to be paid in kind. At this point, a court will likely decide if their use exceeded (A) and (B). Calling for Matt to have a role change is one thing but to likely libel Matt with the term extortion, a criminal offense, especially after only moments before admitting "maybe there's validity there" (regarding infringement of Automattic's WooCommerce mark) is absolutely reckless and it's disappointing to see this unserious blog post promoted here. To see uncareful defamation coming from someone who made their living for many years off the software their target of ire created is especially bleak.
It's rich coming from people demanding a high standard for Matt but not for the WPEngine people.
In the end all of it will get "solved" because there's way too much money in this to go any other way.
As Danny Glover famously said: "I'm too old for this shit"
There's not really any new information here, nor does the article offer some unique third-party take that hadn't been explored before. It's a lot of armchair psychology, third-hand anecdotes, and unfounded sweeping generalisations. TMZ: Tech Bros.
Then Wordpress will be fine.
In general, anyone who doesn't wake up to E=T/A! will go extinct.
Copyrights are for cons. Patents are for parasites. Licenses are for losers.
You can only ignore nature for so long.
by all means this guy is not the best one to call removal of Matt. this also reminds me those VC that got rid of the founders because founders have some flaws, and VC forgot that,without those flawed founders there will be nothing to start with.
Also note that the author doesn’t disclaim any financial stake in the company he used to work for, WP Engine, after his company was acquired. He merely claims that he isn’t a “fan of either party”, so we should value his opinion and trust that it is impartial.
As for myself, I’ve never used WordPress or any CMS, I’m a lowly embedded software engineer. If Matt, the progenitor and steward of one of the most successful open source products in the world, asserts that an entity in the ecosystem is a leech, I’m inclined to believe him.
Related
WP Engine is not WordPress
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp for misleading branding and disabling the revision feature, urging users to contact support and consider alternative hosting to maintain WordPress integrity.
Matt Mullenweg: WP Engine a 'cancer to WordPress' and urges community to switch
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp US 2024 for minimal contributions to WordPress, urging users to consider alternatives, and warned that its practices could harm the WordPress ecosystem.
Matt Mullenweg needs to step down from WordPress.org leadership ASAP
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp US, calling it damaging to WordPress. His remarks led to calls for his resignation, raising concerns about his leadership's impact on the community.
WP Engine Must Win
Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine at WordCamp US, urging users to stop using their services due to trademark disputes, which could threaten the open-source community and WordPress ecosystem's future.
WordPress Drama: From the Sidelines
Tensions between WP Engine and Automattic escalated into a legal dispute after Matt Mullenweg criticized WP Engine's contributions, leading to revoked API access and concerns about WordPress's future.