tptacek
9 months ago
I'm not a lawyer, as you will soon realize. This is just water cooler talk, which is what HN is for.
I sort of directionally think that if WPE had a strong case here, their opening bid wouldn't be a C&D (I've noticed C&Ds frequently include a "preserve documents" section, presumably as punctuation, but for what it's worth that's an implicit threat they might sue).
The meat of this C&D seems to be a section towards the middle where they describe Mullenweg's keynote speech. It makes, according to WPE, these claims (numbers mine):
1. Claiming that WP Engine is a company that just wants to “feed off” of the WordPress ecosystem without giving anything back.
2. Suggesting that WP Engine employees may be fired for speaking up, supporting Mr. Mullenweg, or supporting WordPress, and offering to provide support in finding them new jobs if that were to occur.
3. Stating that every WP Engine customer should watch his speech and then not renew their contracts with WP Engine when those contracts are up for renewal.
4. Claiming that if current WP Engine customers switch to a different host they “might get faster performance.”
5. Alleging that WP Engine is “misus[ing] the trademark” including by using “WP” in its name.
6. Claiming that WP Engine’s investor doesn’t “give a dang” about Open Source ideals.
Under a US defamation analysis, claims (1), (3), and (6) appear to be statements of opinion. Statements of opinion, even when persuasively worded and authoritative, are generally not actionable as defamation. It might depend on the wording; in corner cases, an opinion can be actionable if it directly implies a conclusion made from facts known to the speaker and not disclosed to the audience --- but the facts involved have to be specific, you can't just imagine that I've implied I have secret facts (or my audience expects me to) because I'm Matt Mullenweg.
Claim (4) seems like it's probably just a fact? Is WPE assuredly the fastest possible provider at any given price point? The "might" also seems pretty important there.
That leaves (5) the allegation about the trademark dispute, which doesn't sound like an especially promising avenue for a lawsuit, but who knows? and (2) the bit about employee and former employee reprisals. The thing about (2) is if there's a single example of a disgruntled WPE employee who thinks they missed a promotion because they stuck up for the WordPress Foundation or whatever, WPE might have a hard time using that claim.
You'd think that before WordPress/Automattic started directly demanding funds from the board of WPE, they probably had some kind of counsel review this stuff and figure out what they could and couldn't safely say?
Maybe there's tortious interference stuff here that gives these claims more teeth than a typical defamation suit (I've come to roll my eyes at tortious interference, too; unless you're alleging really specific fact patterns I've come to assume these interference claims are also a sort of C&D "punctuation").
This is one of those times where I'm saying a lot of stuff in the hopes that someone much more knowledgeable will set me straight. :)
mintplant
9 months ago
People in this thread seem to be focused on the defamation angle, but is the more important allegation not the alleged demand for large amounts of money to not destroy WP Engine's business? Matt sounds like a wannabe mob boss in the screencapped texts, sending photos of the crowd before his keynote and talking about how he could still "very easily" make it just a Q&A session if WP Engine agrees to pay up.
chuckadams
9 months ago
Exactly, the extortion is the most serious allegation, but WPE isn't providing a lot of background in terms of what and how much Mullenweg was demanding, only texts that came well after the demand was made. My guess is if there's a really damning email, WPE's lawyers served them a legal hold privately rather than make it public.
Alexa, order ten cases of popcorn...
slouch
9 months ago
Matt admitted on reddit that he asked for 8% of annual revenue or ~40 million. https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1fnz0h6/comment/...
He posted this after receiving the C&D.
mthoms
9 months ago
Notably, Matt demanded that would need to be paid to Automattic instead of the WordPress Foundation. (that's according to WPEngine).
Automattic is Matt's private, for-profit company and a direct competitor to WPE.
arp242
9 months ago
Matt's message reads:
> They had the option to license the WordPress trademark for 8% of their revenue, which could be delivered either as payments, people (Five for the Future .org commitments), or any combination of the above.
So they could have "paid" by just hiring a few WordPress devs to work on it. That is: not necessarily by transferring dollars to Automattic.
IMHO this is an important bit of nuance missing in this thread.
mthoms
9 months ago
Right. But who gatekeeps the project focus, direction and spending? Automattic does.
This would be a different conversation if there was an independent and accountable foundation driving things.
arp242
9 months ago
They do the majority of the work, so they get to decide. That's how it works everywhere. If WP Engine wants to decide they should invest the same 4,000 hours/week.
mthoms
9 months ago
That's the problem though. It's a chicken and egg issue. Those donated hours could be directed towards things that aren't in WPEngines interest. To use an analogy: it's taxation without representation. That seems counter to the open source ethos.
If everything was handled by an independent, transparent and accountable foundation then this would be a different conversation. It isn't. It's handled by a private, for profit, vc-backed company with a leader known for personal vendettas and holding grudges.
I want to be clear: I have no love for WPE and agree they should be doing way more. I'm just pointing out that the current arrangement is not exactly conducive to facilitating that.
arp242
9 months ago
> Those donated hours could be directed towards things that aren't in WPEngines interest
I have a hard time seeing how that can happen. WP-Engine still decides what bits of WordPress they work on – it's just a matter of having developers who work on it.
slouch
9 months ago
That's because Matt's Foundation gave Matt's Automattic the exclusive commercial trademark license. https://x.com/photomatt/status/1838671002529665394
keane
9 months ago
Matt gave away the software he invented and founded a commercial venture to monetize his efforts despite this. Automattic originally registered the trademarks. Years later they donated them to the foundation, to make the marks available for noncommercial use and limited commercial use. In the process Automattic retained the exclusive commercial license to the marks.
Kye
9 months ago
Where is the invention? He forked b2/cafelog and continued work on it when the original project faded out. He had no choice but to give it away unless he wanted the only WordPress install in the world. Another fork like b2evolution or any of the billion blogging tools at the time would have taken the spot WordPress did instead.
keane
9 months ago
>Where is the invention?
“it would be nice to have the flexibility of Movable Type, the parsing of Textpattern, the hackability of b2, and the ease of setup of Blogger. Someday, right?” Synthesis is a type of invention: https://evanm.website/2016/03/synthesis-over-invention/
>Another fork like b2evolution or any of the billion blogging tools at the time would have—
People love to say things like this about any and all products but there’s this overwhelming counterpoint of what actually happened.
tptacek
9 months ago
There are things in that WPE C&D that make me question how candid they're being; for instance, the trademark dispute seems an awful lot more complicated than the letters "W" and "P".
chuckadams
9 months ago
Perhaps, but as I mentioned elsewhere, MM is putting on a master class on how not to resolve such disputes.
deepfriedchokes
9 months ago
I think this guy is having some sort of legit mental health crisis.
chuckadams
9 months ago
Cool, thanks for the link. I wonder how much of Automattic's board is made up of Matt's personal friends. He'd best hope it's a majority.
duskwuff
9 months ago
Out of five board members, one is Matt, one was the CEO of Automattic before Matt took over the role, and a third was an early investor. The other two are harder to pin down.
gibrown
9 months ago
No need to wonder: https://automattic.com/board/
Kye
9 months ago
Agreed. I'm confused by a lot of the discourse in this thread. The extortion seems like the important thing. I would think (paraphrasing) "I'm going to destroy your business if you don't pay me" is extortion regardless of the merits of the claims used in carrying out the threat.
tptacek
9 months ago
Extortion does not look like an easy case to make. Pull up some of the state statutes: they all seem to have intent and malice requirements, and/or, like California, require the threat to be of an unlawful injury. Threatening to ruthlessly exploit capabilities you lawfully have, like the bully pulpit of leading the WordPress project or the strictness with which you license your trademark, is unlikely to meet that standard.
(But see below for the 'DannyBee comment on how UCL unfair competition might work even if you can't make a case under the extortion statute itself).
BobaFloutist
9 months ago
I mean if a business if built on top of your business, is it actually illegal to say "Pay me if you want continued access?" Is it the wording that makes it illegal?
Kye
9 months ago
Who built what business on whose business? It's not clear what you're referring to.
FireBeyond
9 months ago
... to the open source project WordPress? 1) it'd be hard to forbid any one entity from using it, based on the licensing, and 2) the announcements and banners pushed to users referenced WP.com, Matt's for-profit competitor which WPengine doesn't use, and brings about elements of tortious interference.
bastawhiz
9 months ago
The most damning claim, I think, is that Automattic put a banner in every WordPress dashboard on the subject, including WordPress instances hosted by WPE. Automattic is a direct competitor to WPE (by way of WordPress.com). I'm no lawyer but I expect there's at least some argument to be made that there's some abuse of Automattic's position in doing so (though I don't know enough about the law to know whether they have a chance of winning such an argument). If Automattic was purely producing open source software with no vested interest in profit, that would be a different story perhaps.
trog
9 months ago
I have never thought of WPE as a competitor to WordPress.com but perhaps weirdly I think of WordPress.com as a competitor to WordPress.org.
For example, if I have a WordPress site I've built from scratch out of WordPress.org, I am just going to assume trying to put it on WordPress.com will be annoying (and possibly even impossible?), because of issues with themes or plugins or whatever due to the fact that WordPress.com is a separate, hosted SaaS-style CMS, and not a hosting environment for WordPress sites.
WPE, by contrast, is Just Another Webhost to me, with some special bells and whistles for WordPress.
fhd2
9 months ago
It's quite possible to host a "normal" WP installation with custom themes and plugins on WordPress.com (on the more expensive plan), I've done it a few times. But as much as I want to like it, I can't wholeheartedly recommend it. Some stuff that should be easy is just ridiculously difficult, like pulling logs programmatically. I think the main audience it caters to is people hosting a basic site with off the shelf themes.
__jonas
9 months ago
Sorry could you expand on this, how can they "put a banner in [...] WordPress instances hosted by WPE"?
I was under the assumption that WordPress is OSS, and WPEngine is running this software on their platform, so there was an update to this software, contributed by Automattic developers which included a banner denouncing WPE, and the WPE people decided to just deploy that update to their platform?
I don't think that means they "put the banner on their instance" does it? If they are unhappy with the management of the open source software they are using on their platform they presumably could fork it, or decide to not deploy the version that includes this banner, no?
pluc
9 months ago
There's a widget on the default WordPress dashboard that displays a RSS feed of WordPress.org, where Matt posted his rant, making it show up everywhere.
__jonas
9 months ago
Ah I see, thanks for clarifying!
I have seen the mentioned blog post now [1] the whole thing is starting to make more sense to me.
brvry
9 months ago
I think we’re conflating a link in an RSS feed (that can be disabled by the user or WPE) and a banner - typically a large(r) notification in a prominent spot in the UI. This point feels like a distraction.
tptacek
9 months ago
"Abuse of position" is not generally an actionable claim.
DannyBee
9 months ago
Unfair competition is, particularly in California, which interprets it's UCL very broadly.
Let's set aside all other claims (there are others), and take a look at "Unlawful, Unfair, and Fraudulent Business Acts" under that.
We'll also throw out unlawful business acts (I don't see anything unlawful so far).
Unfair: "An “unfair” business act or practice, as defined by the UCL, is typically committed by either a company or a business competitor. ... In the context of a business competitor, it is considered an unfair business act when the company does something that broadly undermines competition in the marketplace."
Additionally, they consider " immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous" business acts to be unfair.
Banners on wp engine sites probably not a good thing under this. Threatening your competitors with bad keynotes unless they pay you, also probably not a great practice.
(I do think you'd be fine to say they suck. I just don't think you can get away with basically extorting them)
Fraudulent: "The UCL also prohibits “fraudulent” business acts or practices, which means any conduct that misleads or deceives consumers."
Note that it does not have to be defamation, or malice, or illegal. Just misleading or deceptive. More exactly, it does not have the elements of common law fraud - Intent is not a requirement, and negligence can be a violation.
So pure opinions without intent or with negligent intent that actually deceive consumers, while not defamation or common law fraud, are quite possibly a fraudulent business practice.
Overall, I think they have a stronger case than you might. Not on defamation, but on other things.
Regardless of the outcome, the approach i see taken by the Automattic CEO here seems remarkably stupid.
Don't mix your roles unless you want a court to mix your roles.
When he threatens to ban them from wordcamp[1] in what capacity is he doing it in?
1. Which, btw, the central website totally avoids mentioning who is in charge or paying overall anywhere i can find. I hope it's not the foundation (or him or automattic) and he's not mixing roles further while threatening his competitors.
dpifke
9 months ago
Piling on re: mixing roles: I read "abuse of position" in the GP comment as "conflict of interest," which is potentially problematic for a board member of a non-profit.
I can't speak to the veracity of the facts presented in WP Engine's C&D letter, but my reading of it is they're accusing the head of the WordPress Foundation, in his official capacity, of putting the interests of his for-profit company ahead of the non-profit's stated mission to "ensure free access, in perpetuity, to the software projects."[0] That's the sort of thing that could threaten the foundation's 501(c)3 status, or in extreme cases lead to criminal charges.
tptacek
9 months ago
I'm just happy to have successfully baited you into commenting. You're obviously more authoritative than I am on this.
eastbound
9 months ago
Yes, but being the editor of the software used by your competitor is certainly funny.
sfmike
9 months ago
just for monopolies right? And for hosting online and software that does it(two verticals of wordpress) there are hoardes of options.
Terr_
9 months ago
> just for monopolies right?
I suspect that's still not actionable in the way the parent poster means, since AFAICT there no private right of action: You can't sue, only petition some government agency to bring their own lawsuit.
throwup238
9 months ago
US antitrust laws grant private rights of action for monetary damages and injuctive relief. They’re unlikely to apply to Automattic/Wordpress though.
(Most other governments don’t grant these rights though)
uudecoded
9 months ago
Generally, but also especially when the position is "WordPress".
camgunz
9 months ago
Isn't this completely fine? If you and I both make aspirin, but we both put a little something extra in it (me vanilla, you salt) and I put banners on my web page saying "bastawhiz's salty aspirin puts the ass in aspirin", doesn't this just seem like typical rivalry? My point here is that defamation is defamation no matter the scale. I think scale is relevant re: damages, but not as to whether or not rivalry escalated to defamation in the first place.
chrisandchris
9 months ago
> Automattic put a banner in every WordPress dashboard on the subject, including WordPress instances hosted by WPE
> I put banners on my web
There's a large difference between putting up a banner on _your_ site and abusing your position to put a banner on _every_ site you can.
camgunz
9 months ago
One person's "abuse" is another person's "I have this platform and can use it however I like." For another example, whenever cable companies (dish, etc.) have licensing disagreements with content creators, they put up a bunch of ads that are like, "ESPN's unfair negotiations mean you may lose access to this channel, call this number to complain". That's never been found to be defamatory--it occurs to this day.
malermeister
9 months ago
If you sell my aspirin in your shop, you will have to accept what I put on the packaging or stop carrying my product.
chrisandchris
9 months ago
That's true, but does not apply to this situation.
Automattic is not the owner of WordPress, the WordPress Foundation is. Even though many employees of Automattic work (maybe full-time) on WordPress [1].
So I sell your aspirin in my shop, and a friend of yours helped you package your aspirins and while doing that put some stickers onto your aspirin.
[1] https://www.df.eu/blog/wer-steckt-hinter-wordpress-ueber-die... (German)
Matticus_Rex
9 months ago
Does WPF take issue with this operational decision by Automattic? If so, they have the avenues to deal with it, and they're the party who can claim to be aggrieved, if it violates some duty Automattic has to WPF. I seems more like this, from my understanding:
You sell a brand of aspirin in your shop. The brand has outsourced most of the production and decision-making to another company. That company puts messages on the bottle. If those messages bother me, I can bring it up with the brand and see if they'll address it, or stop carrying the brand, but the question of whether they've overstepped is for the brand owners rather than me.
FireBeyond
9 months ago
> and they're the party who can claim to be aggrieved, if it violates some duty Automattic has to WPF
Tortious interference - where one party (Automattic) interferes with a contractual relationship between two parties (WPengine, their customers), in this case by means of disparagement pushed to the dashboard of WPengine instances.
Matticus_Rex
9 months ago
Tortious interference requires that the interfering party induce the party to the contract to a breach of the contract. Where's that element?
FireBeyond
9 months ago
Inducement? Like "We have blocked the ability to access plugin and other repositories for customers of WPEngine. We have not done so for this other, "independent", for-profit entity (that just so happens to be owned by the same person)"?
Matticus_Rex
9 months ago
Inducement to what? Where's the breach of contract being encouraged?
mthoms
9 months ago
Here's the thing. Guess who is the head of the WordPress Foundation?
Matt Mullenweg. CEO of Automattic.
Now guess who The WordPress Foundation granted sole rights to sub-license their trademarks? You guessed it. Automattic.
Yeah, it gets worse the more you look at it.
keane
9 months ago
Automattic originally registered the trademark WordPress. They donated it to the WordPress Foundation while retaining a commercial license to the marks. https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-wordpress-foundation/
mthoms
9 months ago
Some important nuance is lost here. Matt Mullenweg transferred the trademark to the WordPress Foundation (which he is head of) and the foundation (again... Matt himself) in turn granted Automattic the exclusive ability to sub-license the name commercially. This is the important bit.
What this means is that any "licensing fee" would be paid to Matt's private, for-profit, VC-backed company (and direct competitor to WPEngine) and there would be zero accountability for how it would be spent.
In practice, the foundation doesn't enjoy any benefit to owning the marks. It's all smoke and mirrors.
keane
9 months ago
The trademark policy sounds like it falls somewhere between the Mozilla Foundation/Corporation model and the Red Hat/Fedora Project model. This is how open source in practice works.
mthoms
9 months ago
Not really. The Mozilla Corporation and Red Hat aren't direct 1:1 commercial competitors to the people they also license the trademarks to (as is the case with Automattic and WPEngine). It's an obvious conflict of interest and inherently problematic on so many levels.
If there is a real-world open-source analogue to that situation, I'd be genuinely interested in hearing about it.
To me the solution seems simple; The WP Foundation should own and license the trademark. Then use the proceeds for its mission in a way that is accountable to the community (Automattic should not have to pay of course).
Matticus_Rex
9 months ago
How does that look worse?
mthoms
9 months ago
Do I need to spell it out? The foundation is headed by the same person who they granted an exclusive license to. Not just a commercial license to use the trademarks. It's permission to sub-license the trademarks for profit without restriction. It's blatant self-dealing.
It's an obvious conflict of interest for a foundation that is supposed to be serving the community.
justinclift
9 months ago
Nah. Putting disparaging claims directly on the dashboard of my customers seems pretty abusive, and if it happened to me I'd be looking at legal options too.
tasuki
9 months ago
Automatic are publishing a blog post and syndicating it to RSS, and some other software (WP.org) is displaying that feed.
If you choose to use the WP.org software as is, it's kind of your fault, isn't it?
camgunz
9 months ago
What about regular, non-disparaging claims? Isn't it a fact that WP Engine turns off the backup stuff? Truth's a defense to libel.
This seems to me plainly like regular old competition. Can you point to something that's clearly defamatory?
bastawhiz
9 months ago
No, it would be like if Google started using Google Tag Manager to put banners on websites that use Plausible Analytics saying "this website uses analytics that might not be accurate!" Or if Cloudflare started putting banners on websites that use S3 saying "downloads might be slow because this website doesn't use Cloudflare R2"
chiefalchemist
9 months ago
Automattic's WP VIP hosting would be a competitor of WPE. VIP is enterprise level. But perhaps Automattic is considering a less high end offering and this is the first move to capturing some quick market share?
DannyBee
9 months ago
The defamation angle is not interesting.
They are pretty clear they will go after them for torturous interference, unfair competition, etc.
California's UCL is much broader than you may think here - it is consistently interpreted very broadly by california courts, and has fairly low requirements (IE fraudulent business practices under the UCL do not have meet the same requirements as fraud)
singleshot_
9 months ago
One fun thing is a lot of state consumer protection laws have a punitive damages component.
The diminished standard of intent and the fact that a mere advertisement can trigger liability in some states makes UCL/CFA extremely powerful in some cases.
bravetraveler
9 months ago
There is simply no need to preserve documents given how public this was. If pressed the grievance can be corroborated externally.
The letter in entirety is a warning of potential legal action. That is the next action if the other party neither ceases or desists.
Maybe this is normal, but we're glorified animals trying to find justice out of a made up process. It's arbitrary, hence arbitration. Not a lawyer either. You probably know more terminology than I do; I just deal with them a lot :/
edit: I think it's a little strange to be placing judgements at this stage. We'll hear the facts if this goes to court. There's enough to know several are upset. Another consideration: by placing the numbers you're kind of trying to make their argument. Why? Let them.
akerl_
9 months ago
It seems pretty likely that there’s communications internal to Automattic or the Wordpress Foundation where they talked about their objectives and plans, assuming the details in the claim are accurate.
That’s what they’re talking about preserving.
bravetraveler
9 months ago
I can see that, I'm saying it's superfluous
user
9 months ago
akerl_
9 months ago
Why?
presspot
9 months ago
Because he's never litigated a case in court.
bravetraveler
9 months ago
I said that and other bits too. It's their argument, not mine. The original reading RE: punctuation seems highly academic but not definitive
Not a cop out, the people filing the CD felt this was enough to move forward with
akerl_
9 months ago
I assume the real goal here is to have the letter exist and be public, as a counterpoint in customer conversations.
crashbunny
9 months ago
I'm also not a lawyer, pleased to meet you.
> I sort of directionally think that if WPE had a strong case here, their opening bid wouldn't be a C&D
I believe, as a non lawyer, in some places to be able to sue for defamation you must first contact the defamer and demand they take it down.
I have no idea and no opinion if there is a case. If there is a case a C&D might be a necessary step.
bravetraveler
9 months ago
Thank you for saying this. Trying to get this out there too. When people say "building a case", this is part of what they mean.
Creating a track record/evidence. Or the opportunity. My only practical experience is trying to get a restraining order. It's harder than you might think. Legal system demands work to work.
DonHopkins
9 months ago
>6. Claiming that WP Engine’s investor doesn’t “give a dang” about Open Source ideals.
But dang is not theirs to give!
FireBeyond
9 months ago
> Maybe there's tortious interference stuff here that gives these claims more teeth than a typical defamation suit (I've come to roll my eyes at tortious interference, too; unless you're alleging really specific fact patterns I've come to assume these interference claims are also a sort of C&D "punctuation").
This is the big one to me, actually. If Matt used the announcement feature in the WP.org codebase to place an announcement in WPEngine customers consoles telling them they should not support WPEngine, but instead his for-profit competitor, WP.com, it's pretty hard to argue that that is anything but tortious interference.
user
9 months ago
aimazon
9 months ago
Matt is predictable. WPE wrote this letter for the community. They knew Matt would throw a fit and they would be able to take the high ground while also releasing an assassination of Matt’s character. The Wordpress community doesn’t care about Wordpress.com, Matt just blew what little credibility he had left. Worthless as a legal letter, brilliant as a response for the Wordpress community. Matt will inevitably step down within a few weeks, and a few years from now, this will be seen as a pivotal moment enabling WPE to dominate Wordpress.com. Matt could not have played this worse.
onli
9 months ago
Matt has no reason to step down. He will explain where the monetary claim is coming from - probably the development time promised and not delivered, or the use of the trademark - and then you have two competing narratives. One by the Foss software maker, one by a big enterprise. Why would a relevant part believe wp engine? And even if, how would that harm internal automattic structures in a way that he loses control?
Also, I see no way how this going forward even in front of courts could end up with wp engine replacing WordPress.com.
aimazon
9 months ago
Automattic benefits greatly from their close relationship to Wordpress. Using the power they have to threaten a commercial competitor that has a good reputation in the community will push the Wordpress community to reevaluate that relationship. The contributions Automattic makes to Wordpress are valuable but valuable contributions do not excuse bad behaviour. Souring the relationship between Automattic and Wordpress is a major blunder, which Matt will be responsible for. If Automattic lose their preferential treatment and are forced to compete with WPE based only on service then they will be crushed because Automattic’s offerings are not as good — there’s a reason Matt is so sensitive about WPE. Automattic are just as dependent on venture capital as WPE, even more so because of how their business has been losing focus. Automattic’s value is based on its relationship with Wordpress, whereas WPE’s is entirely based on the service. Matt is threatening Automattic’s most valuable asset, removing him may be seen as the only option to rescue the relationship.
As an aside, people don’t usually act like this when things are going good. Perhaps Matt is lashing out because of pressure he is already under.
edit: and to close the loop, Matt is demanding benevolence from WPE that Automattic themselves don’t engage in. Automattic own the Wordpress.com domain and promote their hosting service through Wordpress.org (which causes the exact confusion Matt accuses WPE of benefiting from). The money Automattic spend on supporting Wordpress project is not a donation, it’s quid pro quo. Would WPE pay $10m a year to own all that? Of course, any rational company in the space would… but that’s not what Matt is offering.
jarito
9 months ago
8% of revenue in perpetuity seems like a licensing deal, not payment for services. WP is arguing that they don't need a license deal to deliver their service which seems to be true? Therefore, the 8% just seems like a shakedown to get money - good old blackmail.
Matticus_Rex
9 months ago
Maybe my view into the Wordpress community (mostly via Twitter) isn't representative, but it does not seem like WPE represents the community's views from what I'm seeing.
slouch
9 months ago
Take a look at the votes on Matt's reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/user/photomatt/
Matticus_Rex
9 months ago
In a sub that size with a subset of people who are quite pissed, those scores don't look that bad to me. The OP only has +17. We'll see, I guess.
pxtail
9 months ago
> Matt just blew what little credibility he had left
Just "lol", it's really funny line when taking into consideration all the years how he manages WP, cares about direction it moves, fosters and cares about OSS, directs funds and all of other countless things AND putting on the other chalk some WP hosting which happened to grow for one reason or another and is contributing peanuts compared to what it gains from the WP. No, he still has a lot of credibility.
manuelmoreale
9 months ago
I don’t follow the WP ecosystem very close since I left it years ago when I found better tools but I very much look forward to see if your confident prediction holds true.