Technology

58291 readers

3924 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

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

No, it's not. They're literally advertising the performance of their altered code.

You keep parroting nominative use and ignoring that your definition of nominative use is "as the trademark owner uses it", and that there's no legitimate reading of any of that material that doesn't very blatantly imply endorsement, which is always trademark infringement.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

They're advertising the speed of their cache, which can easily be just a plugin, and the amount of servers, which well of course is external software that requires no changes to WordPress.

As for the endorsement part, I'll just copy what I said above:

At most, they just ambiguously used “Powered by WordPress Experts” once. I don’t see how the evidence misleads people into thinking there was an endorsement.

But yeah, the smart way out would’ve been adding a “WP Engine is not associated with WordPress.org”, at least one below the “WP ENGINE®, VELOCITIZE®, TORQUE®, EVERCACHE®, and the cog logo service marks are owned by WPEngine, Inc.” footer. All in the past now, though. At the best both companies are tomfools.

See, that's why I don't like talking about the same thing in multiple threads.

[–] conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

A disclaimer absolutely doesn't make it not trademark infringement. It doesn't even make a dent.

[–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 5 hours ago

Sure, a small disclaimer wouldn't, and a large, prominent, tobacco-style disclaimer wouldn't get rid of everything but will make a dent. Anything else? Where is the endorsement? Where is the modification?