Matt Talks About WordPress Situation

The dispute centers on whether WP Engine has been using WordPress and related trademarks in ways that violate Automattic’s trademark rights—and whether the company has repeatedly delayed a settlement that would require paying a trademark license fee or contributing engineering time back to the WordPress ecosystem. Matt Mullenweg frames the issue as a long-running pattern: WordPress was broadly “free to use” under earlier terms, but WP Engine was later told it must pay “or else,” with the pressure reportedly arriving shortly before WordCamp. The immediate consequence is that WP Engine users can’t update WordPress plugins/themes in the usual way for a period, raising fears about site maintenance and security.

Mullenweg argues the core problem isn’t just that WP Engine hosts WordPress—it’s how the company brands and packages that relationship for customers. He points to WP Engine’s use of “WP” in product naming (including a plan previously called “core WordPress”) and says the company’s marketing and implementation go beyond what he considers acceptable trademark use. He also claims WP Engine’s approach confuses consumers: while “WP” is used widely across the ecosystem (e.g., “WP Beginner,” plugins, and other WordPress-related products), WP Engine’s specific branding and customer-facing presentation allegedly crosses a legal line.

Beyond trademark concerns, Mullenweg says WP Engine has built a large business “on the backs of confusion” while contributing little back to WordPress.org. He cites what he describes as minimal community support—no trademark license, no donation to the WordPress Foundation, and limited engineering contribution—despite operating at scale (he references roughly 1.5 million WordPress installs). He contrasts that with other hosts that, in his account, maintain trademark agreements and contribute more, even if they earn less.

A major theme is control and cost. Mullenweg argues WP Engine can technically mirror WordPress.org resources—plugin directories, update servers, and other infrastructure—because it controls the code running on customer sites. He suggests WP Engine could replicate the services that WordPress.org provides (even though it would be expensive), but chooses not to because it would reduce profit. He also claims WP Engine has previously changed code across its customer base unilaterally, including actions he says broke or hid features on many sites.

When pressed on “why now,” Mullenweg rejects the idea that this is sudden. He describes years of negotiations and meetings with WP Engine leadership, offering a settlement structure that could combine a trademark fee with engineering contributions (including an option framed as percentages of revenue). He says WP Engine repeatedly delayed, and he alleges the company also ran smear campaigns—contesting his behavior and portraying him negatively—while withholding the kind of agreement he says would end the conflict.

In the closing exchange, Mullenweg offers a concrete target: he believes a “fair amount” would be around 8% of WP Engine revenue, payable either as a trademark license fee to Automattic (with additional engineering hired for core) or as direct engineering contributions. He also says WP Engine’s best path to supporting open source is to sign a trademark license and contribute in measurable ways, arguing that the ecosystem would benefit if WP Engine’s resources were directed into WordPress core and community infrastructure.