Automattic Is Doing Open Source Dirty

Automattic’s push to demand 8% of WP Engine’s revenue over alleged insufficient “giving back” is framed as a direct threat to open-source licensing certainty—because it treats success built on open code as leverage for new, monetized obligations. The dispute matters beyond WordPress hosting: if project owners can effectively change the deal after years of permissive use, businesses that rely on open-source terms may face surprise claims, lawsuits, and “shakedown” dynamics that undermine the predictability that made open source commercially viable.

The core timeline claim is that WordPress only shifted its terms of service in 2024 to place WP “under the envelope” of its trademark. For roughly two decades (2005–2024), WP is described as being treated as free for anyone to use “as you would like,” enabling companies to build services around it. Against that backdrop, WP Engine is now sued for 8% of revenue—presented as the clearest, most concrete indicator of what changed and why the conflict erupted now.

Support for the criticism centers on the GPL principle that open-source licenses grant rights to use and modify software, but do not allow licensors to demand additional payments simply because a downstream company becomes profitable. The argument draws a sharp line between “being a dick” and violating license law: even if WP Engine’s community support is inadequate, the license itself is supposed to remain stable and enforceable as written. The transcript repeatedly returns to the idea that open source succeeds because its licensing regime offers clarity and certainty—especially the expectation that software is provided without warranty and that liability limits are part of the bargain.

A major complication in the dispute is trademark and branding rather than copyright alone. The transcript notes that Automattic’s trademark strategy and WP Engine’s use of “WP” in product naming and positioning are treated as central friction points, including claims that WP Engine may have led users to believe it was officially affiliated with WordPress. Still, the broader fear is that trademark enforcement combined with revenue demands could create a precedent where licensing terms become negotiable after the fact.

Several participants argue that WP Engine should fight aggressively in court rather than settle, comparing the situation to companies taking on “patent troll” behavior—because settling could normalize the threat model. Others suggest that WP Engine could fork alternatives, but the transcript insists the issue isn’t whether competitors can build; it’s whether the original license can be retroactively reinterpreted to extract a cut of profits.

The discussion also touches on Automattic’s relationship to WP Engine, including the claim that Automattic previously held ownership stakes (and later sold them), which is portrayed as making the current posture feel more conflicted. Ultimately, the transcript’s bottom line is that open-source licensing must remain a “gift” with reliable terms: if the deal can be rewritten through lawsuits and trademark pressure, open source becomes too risky for anyone to build on—regardless of whether WordPress itself ultimately “wins.”