What the heck is going on with WordPress?

I think a big issue here is that it looks like Automattic (WordPress.com) is controlling the independent WordPress Foundation to harm one of Automattic's competitors.

If a commercial entity is allowed to control a non-profit and direct it toward ends that gain it profits, that isn't really a non-profit. Is the WordPress Foundation taking actions in accordance with its mission or is it taking actions at the behest of Automattic? If it's the latter, that seems like a breach of its non-profit status. It's not a non-profit if it's just a division of Automattic set up to further Automattic's profits.

Yes, infrastructure costs money and if the WordPress Foundation wanted to charge for access, that could certainly be reasonable. However, the charges would need to be reasonable and consistent with its non-profit mission and not created in a way to harm one of Automattic's competitors, not to benefit Automattic, etc.

And the current actions feel like a major breach of the WordPress Foundation's missions and statements. Literally, their website still tells people to use "WP" as a generic term. "For various reasons related to our WordPress trademark, we ask if you’re going to start a site about WordPress or related to it that you not use “WordPress” in the domain name. Try using “wp” instead, or another variation" (https://wordpress.org/about/domains/). They'd explicitly disclaimed any ownership of "WP" as a trademark.

And now Automattic is directing the WordPress Foundation to harm a competitor that Automattic thinks is taking profits from them. To me, it seems like the government needs to look into whether Automattic's relationship with the WordPress Foundation is legal. IANAL, but it seems like the WordPress Foundation is violating its non-profit status. If I created a non-profit whose mission was to make money for my for-profit company and harm my competitors, that doesn't seem legitimate.

Mullenweg started criticizing WP Engine. Those criticisms have some legitimacy. WP Engine wants to be a free-rider on the ecosystem - just as AWS wants to take popular open source projects and offer them as a service while taking profits from those actually developing the software. WP Engine sent a cease and desist to Automattic and Automattic sent one back. But now Automattic is using the WordPress Foundation to punish WP Engine. The WordPress Foundation should be supporting its non-profit mission, not the profit motives of Automattic.

I get Mullenweg's position: WP Engine is trying to make lots of money off the software that Automattic has been putting the hard work into. But that's what happens with open-source. You get free riders. I think it's fine to try and publicly shame them. However, it feels like they've crossed a line by essentially making the WordPress Foundation an arm of Automattic's for-profit. Maybe it's legal (IANAL), but then what's the point of any software foundation if it can just be controlled by a for-profit company to help the for-profit and harm competitors? Shouldn't the non-profit have to take actions that further its non-profit mission?

In fact, Automattic's letter to WP Engine doesn't say that WP Engine should be paying the WordPress Foundation. It says that WP Engine should be paying tens of millions a year to Automattic.

I hate defending WP Engine because Mullenweg's criticism has legitimacy. Free riders making tons of money are crappy actors in open-source communities. At the same time, the WordPress Foundation shouldn't be an arm of Automattic and it's hugely problematic for the foundation to punish WP Engine like this.

It would require the reader to actively insert additional meaning into a mundane summary that isn’t disputed in order to arrive at name-calling here.

I an not familiar with all of the minutiae of dang’s moderation philosophy, but taking a comment, attributing the least charitable possible interpretation to it, and then accusing someone of name-calling based off nothing but your claim to a deeper knowledge about how he thinks seems like unproductive conversation.

A key distinction is that one doesn't accuse of name-calling, one moderates based on it.

Accusations are also personal attacks, and are similarly against guidelines.

Note too that it's member votes and flags which achieve the overwhelming majority of moderation results on HN, so going up against a significant, and reasonably plausible, objection, probably isn't a winning move.

That said, I've overspent myself in this thread.

We just see the limits of open source unfortunately.while I understand the reasons behind wp's actions against wp engine, they still broke userland and lost trust from many users because of that. Bad communications and actions from wp and its founder imo.

> But access to the autoupdates infrastructure isn't part of that deal. If wp-engine want to change customers for access to that it's not unreasonable to expect a contribution.

If they went about it in a fair and equal manner, sure. So far the public evidence looks like the access denial is retalitory or perhaps even an attempt at extortion over the larger dispute.

The api may not be part of tje GPL, but it still seems like they offered it freely and encouraged people to use it with no expectation of anything in return. Encouraging someone to use X, then getting mad at them over something unrelated, and abruptly cutting off X with no public notice is pretty unprofessional. Given their corporate structure, maybe even illegal.