Technology

58292 readers

5677 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

261

WordPress.org bans WP Engine, blocks it from accessing its resources (techcrunch.com)

submitted 2 days ago by Aatube@kbin.melroy.org to c/technology@lemmy.world

99 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -4 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I think we should agree to disagree that it was modified enough here.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

There is no "enough". Any modification at all takes their permission to use their trademark.

Most allow you to do so within reasonable guidelines, but that only gives you the benefit of the doubt if it's ambiguous. As soon as they tell you that you don't have permission to use their trademark on your altered version, you can't use it.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -2 points 1 day ago

But is gatekeeping the configuration files or wrapping around the software really modification?

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I can't go and modify something and violate their trademarks in the process lol.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

You can't, and I'm disagreeing that what they were doing counts as modification.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Did they change anything? If so, it's modification.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That is the question. I think this is all perfectly achievable by only writing new, separate software to selectively gatekeep the configuration files without changing the source code of WordPress itself. Like I said, not dedicating more resources to WordPress.org doesn't give WP Engine the moral high ground either, though.

[–] JackbyDev@programming.dev 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

To be honest it doesn't really matter if it's modified or an entirely different product offering. It seems it is trying to muddy the waters with the name WP.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 0 points 1 day ago

IMO that part's entirely fine. After all, it is a webhosting engine for WordPress. Would you say the same about e.g. NameMC.com?