Yesterday, Matt Mullenweg dropped a bombshell on the WordPress community with his latest blog post targeting WP Engine. Just days after his controversial remarks at WCUS, where he publicly called out WP Engine for their supposed lack of contributions to open-source WordPress, Matt has doubled down on his criticism.
Now, let me be clear upfront—I am not a WP Engine user, and this isn’t some retaliation piece because I’m a diehard fan. In fact, I’ve never even touched WP Engine. Personally, I prefer Rocket.net. But I’m writing this because I believe Matt has lost sight of what it truly means to contribute to WordPress, and more importantly, the ways in which people and companies contribute.
Matt seems to think that his definition of contribution is the only one that matters, while ignoring the real, tangible impacts that companies like WP Engine have on the community. And let’s not forget—Automattic, Matt’s own company, while a heavy contributor, also takes advantage of the open-source community in ways that harm the very project they claim to support, mainly through the rampant brand confusion between WordPress.com and WordPress.org.
A Little History on WordPress
Let’s rewind for a moment. WordPress was founded by Matt Mullenweg and Mike Little in 2003 when they forked an existing platform to create the first version of WordPress. Over the years, it evolved from a simple blogging tool to the platform that now powers over 40% of the web. No doubt, Matt played a pivotal role in that transformation.
But just two years after launching WordPress, Matt founded Automattic to profit off the platform, leveraging his control over the WordPress trademark to launch WordPress.com. And this is where the problems begin. Automattic’s financial stake in the WordPress ecosystem is massive, and while they contribute significantly to the project, they also blur the lines between the open-source platform (WordPress.org) and their for-profit arm (WordPress.com).
The Bill of Rights
Matt often refers back to the WordPress “Bill of Rights,” a set of freedoms that WordPress is built upon:
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
- The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
- The freedom to redistribute.
- The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others.
These last three points are critical, especially in light of Matt’s recent attacks on WP Engine. Let’s break down the hypocrisy.
Matt’s Attack on WP Engine
In his blog post titled “WP Engine is Not WordPress,” Matt takes aim at WP Engine for disabling post revisions in WordPress to save on storage. He goes as far as to say:
What WP Engine gives you is not WordPress. It’s something they’ve chopped up, hacked, butchered to look like WordPress, but actually they’re giving you a cheap knock-off and charging you more for it.
According to Matt’s own Bill of Rights, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with what WP Engine is doing. Consumers vote with their dollars, and WP Engine has been incredibly successful. Why? Because they offer a hosting solution that consumers like. People pay a premium for their hosting.
WP Engine may not contribute as much directly to WordPress core, but they’ve invested heavily in tools like Local, Frost, and Better Search and Replace—tools that benefit WordPress users. The problem is, these contributions don’t “count” under Matt’s FFTF (Five for the Future) campaign because they don’t directly touch the core software.
Two Major Problems with Matt’s Approach
- It Divides the Community: Instead of everyone focusing on the positive outcomes of an event like WCUS, the conversation is now dominated by Matt’s tirade against WP Engine. This kind of infighting is unnecessary and unproductive.
- Automattic’s Own Advantage: No company takes more advantage of WordPress than Automattic. Sure, they contribute thousands of hours to the project, but the lines between WordPress.com and WordPress.org are blurred to the point that improving one inevitably benefits the other. Where’s the transparency in that?
The Real Issue: Hypocrisy
Here’s the crux of the matter: Matt is attacking a company for doing exactly what Automattic has been doing for years—leveraging WordPress for profit. If WP Engine is guilty of “chopping up” WordPress to suit their needs, what do we call WordPress.com, which is often confused as the official version of WordPress?
According to the Bill of Rights Matt himself wrote, WP Engine is well within their rights to modify WordPress as they see fit. And if consumers are happy with what they’re getting, why go on stage and publicly berate them? WP Engine is also a major sponsor of WordCamps—why would they continue to support events where they’re being attacked?
Conclusion
At the end of the day, this feels like Matt lashing out at a company that has successfully leveraged WordPress in the same way he has. If WordPress is truly open source, Matt shouldn’t have the power to use the .org platform to attack other companies. There’s an undeniable conflict of interest here.
Matt deserves credit for his contributions over the years, but that doesn’t give him a free pass to use his influence in ways that harm the community. If we’re going to uphold the open-source philosophy, it has to apply to everyone—including Matt and Automattic.