The blocked resources in question? Automatic security and features updates and plugin/theme repository access. Matt Mullenweg reasserted his claim that this was a trademark issue. In tandem, WordPress.org updated its Trademark Policy page to forbid WP Engine specifically (way after the Cease & Desist): from “you are free to use [‘WP’] n any way you see fit” to a diatribe:

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.

https://techcrunch.com/2024/09/26/wordpress-vs-wp-engine-drama-explained attempts to provide a full chronology so far.

Edit:

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.

  • interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    1 month ago

    Nah. WordPress is GPL, they can’t bitch about someone else reselling it. That would be like Linus Thorvalds blocking a company that sells linux distro because he doesn’t like them.

    And also wordpress is a piece of trash.

          • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 month ago

            Yeah, I agree with telling them it, but I also don’t like following up on the same thing in multiple places. I’m putting it here so Inter can respond there later.

      • interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        It’s been debated to death in the thread linked below. I tend to fall on the side of the nominative fair use, but that’s for lawyer and judge to sort out because I’m neither.

        A cursory check of law review tells me the US doesn’t have a uniform nominative fair use test applicable to the resell of goods and that the supreme court has refused to endorse a test creating a lot of inconsistency between circuit court. So everyone in that thread probably right in a different circuit court.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          There is no debate.

          Nominative fair use has no relevance to a separate, competing product. Nominative fair use gives you permission to use the term in the exact manner they do and no more. Their notice that your version is not “WordPress”, in and of itself, completely nullifies the argument.

    • Aatube@kbin.melroy.orgOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      There’s still the compelling-ish point of them only contributing 40 hours to the project per week, though.

      • interurbain1er@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        The GPL doesn’t say you have to contribute anything other than the changes you make. If automattic is not happy with the terms of the GPL they should have picked something else. But then the product wouldn’t be so popular.

        Honestly, I don’t see the difference from buying managed service for a software from a random cloud provider. You can go anywhere and get a fully managed postgresql, kubernetes and so many others, most of them probably dont contribute much.