The world of WordPress, one of the most popular technologies for creating and hosting websites, is going through a very heated controversy. The core issue is the fight between WordPress founder and Automattic CEO Matt Mullenweg and WP Engine, which hosts websites built on WordPress.

WordPress technology is open source and free, and it powers a huge chunk of the internet — around 40% of websites. Websites can host their own WordPress instance or use a solution provider like Automattic or WP Engine for a plug-and-play solution.

In mid-September, Mullenweg wrote a blog post calling WP Engine a “cancer to WordPress.” He criticized the host for disabling the ability for users to see and track the revision history for every post. Mullenweg believes this feature is at the “core of the user promise of protecting your data” and said that WP Engine turns it off by default to save money.

He also called out WP Engine investor Silver Lake and said they don’t contribute sufficiently to the open source project and that WP Engine’s use of the “WP” brand has confused customers into believing it is part of WordPress.

The legal battle

In reply, WP Engine sent a cease-and-desist letter to Mullenweg and Automattic to withdraw their comments. It also said that its use of the WordPress trademark was covered under fair use.

The company claimed that Mullenweg had said he would take a “scorched earth nuclear approach” against WP Engine unless it agreed to pay “a significant percentage of its revenues for a license to the WordPress trademark.”

In response, Automattic sent its own cease-and-desist letter to WP Engine, saying that they had breached WordPress and WooCommerce trademark usage rules.

The WordPress Foundation also changed its Trademark Policy page and called out WP Engine, alleging the hosting service has confused users.

“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,” the updated page reads.

WP Engine ban, community impact, and trademark battle

Mullenweg then banned WP Engine from accessing the resources of WordPress.org. While elements like plug-ins and themes are under open source license, providers like WP Engine have to run a service to fetch them, which is not covered under the open source license.

This broke a lot of websites and prevented them from updating plug-ins and themes. It also left some of them open to security attacks. The community was not pleased with this approach of leaving small websites helpless.

In response to the incident, WP Engine said in a post that Mullenweg had misused his control of WordPress to interfere with WP Engine customers’ access to WordPress.org.

“Matt Mullenweg’s unprecedented and unwarranted action interferes with the normal operation of the entire WordPress ecosystem, impacting not just WP Engine and our customers, but all WordPress plugin developers and open source users who depend on WP Engine tools like ACF,” WP Engine said.

On September 27, WordPress.org lifted the ban temporarily, allowing WP Engine to access resources until October 1.

Mullenweg wrote a blog post clarifying that the fight is only against WP Engine over trademarks. He said Automattic has been trying to broker a trademark licensing deal for a long time, but WP Engine’s only response has been to “string us along.”

The WordPress community and other projects feel this could also happen to them and want clarification from Automattic, which has an exclusive license to the WordPress trademark. The community is also asking about clear guidance around how they can and can’t use “WordPress.”

The WordPress Foundation, which owns the trademark, has also filed to trademark “Managed WordPress” and “Hosted WordPress.” Developers and providers are worried that if these trademarks are granted, they could be used against them.

Developers have expressed concerns over relying on commercial open source products related to WordPress, especially when their access can go away quickly.

Open-source content management system Ghost’s founder John O’Nolan also weighed in on the issue and criticized control WordPress being with one person.

“The web needs more independent organizations, and it needs more diversity. 40% of the web and 80% of the CMS market should not be controlled by any one individual,” he said in an X post.

On September 30, a day before the WordPress.org deadline for the ban on WP Engine, the hosting company updated its site’s footer to clarify it is not directly affiliated with the WordPress Foundation or owns the WordPress trade.

“WP Engine is a proud member and supporter of the community of WordPress® users. The WordPress® trademark is the intellectual property of the WordPress Foundation, and the Woo® and WooCommerce® trademarks are the intellectual property of WooCommerce, Inc. Uses of the WordPress®, Woo®, and WooCommerce® names in this website are for identification purposes only and do not imply an endorsement by WordPress Foundation or WooCommerce, Inc. WP Engine is not endorsed or owned by, or affiliated with, the WordPress Foundation or WooCommerce, Inc,” the updated description on the site read.

The company also changed its plan names from “Essential WordPress,” “Core WordPress,” and “Enterprise WordPress” to “Essential,” “Core,” and “Enterprise.”