Automattic demanding an 8% cut of WP Engine's revenue is a wanton violation of open source ideals, and the damage to open source may extend far beyond WordPress
Automattic demanding 8% of WP Engine's revenues because they're not “giving back enough” to WordPress is a wanton violation …
HEYDavid Heinemeier Hansson
Context & Ripple Effects
The dispute moved from a trademark-focused cease-and-desist exchange to a proposed seven-year arrangement under which Automattic sought 8% of WP Engine’s monthly revenue for WordPress trademark use. That proposed revenue-linked trademark deal made “giving back” a concrete commercial demand rather than an abstract disagreement over project support.
WP Engine then sued Automattic and WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg, while Automattic said it had sought a licensing arrangement for a long time. The open-source concern is therefore tied to whether control over a project’s name and infrastructure can be used to set terms for major commercial users.
First-order effects
WP Engine faces a direct choice between accepting a revenue-linked trademark arrangement and continuing a legal challenge to Automattic’s demands.
Automattic’s attempt to connect commercial revenue with WordPress trademark access puts its governance of the WordPress ecosystem under sharper scrutiny from users, hosts, and contributors.
Second-order effects
Other companies built around WordPress may reassess their trademark exposure and the practical independence of services that rely on WordPress-controlled assets.
The litigation can turn a bilateral licensing conflict into a test of the boundaries between open-source software, associated trademarks, and access to project infrastructure.
Third-order effects
If maintainers increasingly use trademark or infrastructure control to extract revenue from large ecosystem businesses, open-source adoption may carry more governance and commercial-policy risk than a software license alone suggests.
Conversely, a clear legal or negotiated boundary could push open-source projects and commercial service providers toward more explicit, predictable rules for funding and brand use.
The trend: This is one example of open-source governance colliding with the economic power that maintainers retain through trademarks and essential project infrastructure.
@dhh I'm a huge believer in open source and the GPL and I've never modified any projects I'm involved with in 21 years to have a more restrictive license.
They went to retain WordPress' shine of open source, but also be able to extract their pound of flesh from any competitor that might appear, whenever they see fit. Screw that.
@photomatt I'd love to see that spirit prevail in this dispute. Accepting the lack of patches as a valid option under the license terms. We don't have to capture every potential contributor to prosper. The GPL is restrictive enough without the shadow terms on top.
“That's the deal. That's open source. I give you a gift of code, you accept the terms of the license. There cannot be a second set of shadow obligations that might suddenly apply, if you strike it rich using the software. Then the license is meaningless.” https://world.hey.com/..…
If Matt won't listen to the WordPress community, hopefully he can listen to a peer who also started a massive and successful open source project. This has implications across the fabric of technology and open source.
Open source software represents a vibrant, global community where code is not just written, but shared, scrutinized, and improved upon by an extensive network of developers worldwide. Open source isn't just about free code; it's about building communities where ideas flourish.
@dhh Thank you for writing about this! I'm sorry if our messaging made you think this about the GPL — I have no issue with their use of GPL code. It's specifically about their misuse of the “WordPress” and “WooCommerce” trademarks. Happy to hop on a call and explain more! Huge fa…
these kinds of things have impacts - big company legal teams are quite annoying and hyper-sensitive they already scrutinize everything and create lists of “risks” - we don't need to be giving them more ammo so they can tell people they can't use OSS