For over two decades, WordPress has quietly become the backbone of the internet, powering an astonishing 43% of all websites. It has done so without generating much controversy, largely due to its open-source ethos, which has allowed developers and companies alike to freely use and build upon its code. But a storm has recently erupted within the WordPress community, with a heated confrontation over whether companies that profit from the platform owe something in return.
At the center of this debate is Matt Mullenweg, cofounder of WordPress and CEO of Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com. His recent comments have sparked an intense debate on what it means to contribute to the open-source ecosystem, calling into question the business practices of one of the largest players in the WordPress ecosystem — WP Engine.
Last week, Mullenweg took to the stage at a WordCamp event, a conference dedicated to the WordPress community, to launch a scathing attack on WP Engine, a major WordPress hosting provider. He accused WP Engine of profiting off of the open-source WordPress code without giving anything meaningful back, labeling the company a “cancer” in the community. These comments have ignited a firestorm, dragging the once-quiet platform into a public dispute over open-source ethics, corporate responsibility, and the future of WordPress itself.
The Roots of the Conflict
WP Engine, founded in 2010, provides hosting services specifically tailored for WordPress sites. The company has grown to become one of the leading players in the space, hosting over 200,000 websites. In contrast, Automattic runs WordPress.com, which also provides hosting services but in direct competition with WP Engine. Both companies use WordPress’ open-source code, but while Automattic contributes a considerable amount of development work back to the project, WP Engine’s contributions have been more modest.
Mullenweg pointed out that Automattic commits 3,988 hours per week toward improving the open-source WordPress.org platform. In contrast, WP Engine has only contributed 40 hours per week. For Mullenweg, this discrepancy represents more than a failure of WP Engine to pull its weight; it threatens the very future of the open-source project.
Mullenweg’s argument centers on the idea that companies making substantial profits from WordPress ought to be giving back to the community in some form, whether through financial contributions or development work. This open-source ethos has been at the core of WordPress from the beginning, but WP Engine, acquired by private equity firm Silver Lake in 2018, represents a shift toward profit-driven exploitation, according to Mullenweg.
A Battle Over Trademarks
At the heart of this battle is not just the philosophical debate about how open-source projects should be used, but also the legal wrangling over the WordPress trademark. Mullenweg has accused WP Engine of misleading customers by using the “WP” abbreviation, suggesting that the company is profiting from confusion over its affiliation with WordPress itself. To that end, he has demanded that WP Engine either pay a licensing fee for using the WordPress name or significantly increase its contributions to the project.
WP Engine has countered with its own accusations, alleging that Automattic attempted to extort the company by demanding an exorbitant sum of money ahead of Mullenweg’s WordCamp keynote. WP Engine’s legal team has responded with a cease and desist letter, accusing Mullenweg of orchestrating a “scorched earth” campaign against them. They claim that his true motive is to damage a competitor in the WordPress hosting market, using the guise of open-source advocacy to achieve his goals.
The stakes are high for WP Engine’s customers, who suddenly found themselves caught in the crossfire. In retaliation for the alleged trademark violations, WordPress.org temporarily blocked WP Engine customers from accessing critical servers, preventing them from updating or installing plugins and themes on their sites. While this block has been lifted for now, Mullenweg has given WP Engine until October 1st to resolve the trademark dispute or face further sanctions.
Open Source or Corporate Control?
The conflict has divided the WordPress community. On one side, many argue that WP Engine is in the wrong for profiting off the work of the community without giving back. Others believe that Mullenweg is overstepping his bounds, using his influence over WordPress.org to target a business rival. Some have even called for Mullenweg to step down from his leadership role within the WordPress Foundation, accusing him of abusing his power.
There is also a growing fear that this conflict could lead to a fork in the WordPress project, splitting the platform into competing versions. This would not be the first time an open-source project has fractured over disputes about corporate involvement, and many are worried that WordPress could be heading down the same path.
The open-source model has always been a balancing act between community contributions and corporate interests. While companies like Automattic and WP Engine have built profitable businesses on top of WordPress, the question of whether they are obligated to give back — and how much — remains an open debate. Mullenweg’s crusade to ensure that WP Engine “pays its fair share” has sparked an important conversation about the future of open-source software and the responsibilities that come with profiting from it.
What Comes Next?
As the October 1st deadline approaches, both sides are digging in their heels. WP Engine seems unwilling to capitulate to Mullenweg’s demands, while Automattic shows no sign of backing down. The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching implications, not only for the WordPress ecosystem but for open-source software as a whole.
For now, website operators, developers, and hosting customers are left in a state of uncertainty, wondering whether the tools they rely on will remain freely accessible or whether corporate disputes will dictate the future of the platform.
In an ecosystem that has always thrived on collaboration, this conflict could set a dangerous precedent for how open-source projects navigate the growing influence of profit-driven companies.
Miyuki
Alex
Weiliang
Brian