←back to thread

154 points davidandgoliath | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.195s | source
Show context
codegeek ◴[] No.41873704[source]
Mullenweg just keeps digging. He is the only person I have ever seen interacting in such a petty manner that he made a company backed by Private Equity look like a victim. If Trademark was the issue, why did it take him over a decade ? Why is he not going after all the other gazillion WP providers that use similar phrase on their website ? We all know the answer. The only company (WP Engine) that beat his for profit company (wordpress.com). He is just salty.
replies(6): >>41873785 #>>41874090 #>>41874296 #>>41875182 #>>41877292 #>>41879436 #
throwawaymaths ◴[] No.41873785[source]
Well charitably I would suspect that for the first question, he probably didn't want to rock the open source community too much. Look at the trouble the rust foundation got into for trademark enforcement, and it hasn't really been a decade. In general, there's no good time to start flexing on your trademark.

For your second question, Matt claims that it's partly because WP engine disabled core features of WordPress. I can imagine a world where you are inundated with complaints that your software doesn't do X basic thing (because the top provider has disabled it) but ITS BEEN THERE THIS WHOLE FUCKING TIME TIME STOP COMPLAINING (put a smile on and explain calmly). You get my point. And then you snap.

No idea if that's what is in his mind but I have some sympathy for Matt. In principle. (This is me steelmanning Matt)

replies(3): >>41873882 #>>41874573 #>>41876179 #
ceejayoz ◴[] No.41873882[source]
Disabling/limiting revisions is built in to WordPress.

All WP Engine did is add:

define( 'WP_POST_REVISIONS', false );

to their configs.

replies(2): >>41874058 #>>41874089 #
1. apocalyptic0n3 ◴[] No.41874089[source]
Which is also something done by his own hosting companies (unsure if it's in all cases, but at least some).