The feud between Automattic and WP Engine has continued, with WordPress.org blocking access by WP Engine’s servers.
In WP Engine Must Win, I wrote about my thoughts on the legal argument on this battle, and why it is important that WP Engine win the trademark case in order to protect the ecosystem. I also touched on the moral argument:
The case that companies should contribute certain amounts (for example, 5% of time or resources) is one that reasonable people can argue over and disagree about – and we see other cases of this across the open source community. Raising whether certain companies are meaningfully contributing is the sort of advocacy befitting the Foundation, whether you agree with the specifics or not.
However, we should not confuse this worthwhile advocacy with the stunning claims that Matt and Automattic are making, and the impact this would cause upon the industry and the project itself.
The confusion between these arguments has clouded much of this discussion, and I’ve had both public and private responses to my post which have expressed gratitude for helping to clarify these.1 Richard Best’s excellent WP and Legal Stuff has also broken these arguments out, and I strongly encourage reading everything he has written on this topic.
Setting aside the legal argument, I want to address the broader points that Matt has made about the sustainability of the ecosystem, and about what companies should contribute.
I agree with Matt that for the strength of the ecosystem, we must defend the ideals of the project.
Protecting open source
Freedom Zero is the freedom to run the program for any purpose, and it is a foundational ideal of free software. The GPL license is clear that there is no obligation for users to contribute back to the software.
For a long time, this was enough. However, I have personally changed my view on these obligations over the years, and this latest case brings it further into focus.
It’s clear that we live in a world where open source and free software won. The challenges these licenses were created to face have been defeated. However, these licenses are ill-equipped to deal with the tragedy of the commons that is modern exploitation of open source.
Matt is right when he speaks about the ethos of open source being what makes it work, and we need to step up to reinforce this. There is a strong case to be made that bad actors are plundering the plentiful fields of open source and exploiting the spirit of the ecosystems, and if we do not act, the commons may crumble.
It’s also clear that we don’t have the right tools to deal with these problems right now. The WordPress trademark is being used in this legal battle since it is one of the only tools that’s available, but in doing so, has created negative consequences we now must all live with.
We need something better than this.
Empowering the WordPress Foundation
In order to meet these challenges, we need new tools.
The best way we can do this is to empower the WordPress Foundation, whose mission is:
To ensure free access, in perpetuity, to the software projects we support. People and businesses come and go, so it is important to ensure that the source code for these projects will survive beyond the current contributor base, that we may create a stable platform for web publishing for generations to come.
Currently, the Foundation is underequipped to achieve this mission, and does so only indirectly.
WordPress needs a strong Foundation to ensure its longevity into the future, one which is capable of fighting for the spirit of the ecosystem.
We can take inspiration from other open source ecosystems about this, including from the Drupal Association, the Python Software Foundation, and the Linux Foundation. We can follow their models by empowering the WordPress Foundation in three key areas.
The WordPress Foundation must be enabled and responsible
The Foundation needs to be stronger than it is today, and enabled to achieve its goals. It must also be trusted by the ecosystem in its role.
Currently, the Foundation plays a minor role in the operations and financial backing of the project. Its primary roles traditionally have been stewardship of the trademark, and operation of WordCamps – the latter of which is now run by a subsidiary public benefit corporation.
The largest costs for community services – employing contributors and running WordPress.org – are borne primarily by generous contributions directly from Matt and Automattic, along with many other contributors from other companies to the project. Consequently, there’s little perceived benefit to direct donations to the Foundation, and burden continues to fall to Matt and Automattic. These donations are truly commendable2, but we need to build a system that does not rely on this alone.
By acting transparently and being more active, the Foundation could build trust and earn the ability to solicit more support.
A clear start to achieve this is to empower the Foundation with a steering committee or board comprised of active community members, which can join Matt in actively driving the mission. At a minimum, this committee should be responsible for the Foundation’s use of trademarks and its policies – it may also make sense for it to have a say in the project’s direction and roadmap, as in Joost’s proposal.3
The Foundation could take a further step towards ensuring the continuity of the project by directly employing key contributors, following the model of the Linux Foundation, which employs key contributors like Linus Torvalds, Greg Kroah-Hartman, and Shuah Khan.4
With trust built in the Foundation, it could solicit memberships/sponsorships more strongly from companies, following the model of many other successful foundations, letting those companies benefit from the goodwill it creates (as Automattic does with their donations). In doing so, it could become financially independent, enabling WordPress to truly survive in perpetuity.
This ensures both that the Foundation can meet its goals of ensuring access even as people and businesses come and go, and also ensures the Foundation itself survives any changes – creating a virtuitous cycle.
The WordPress Foundation must be clear
To ensure it can be trusted by the community, the Foundation needs to be clear on its policies, especially on the trademark policy and on community involvement.
Until the talk at WordCamp US, it was widely understood that the Five for the Future program was a suggested, voluntary program, encouraging companies to contribute 5% of their time or resources to the project. However, it is clear from Automattic’s actions that some level of contribution is now a requirement in the community.
The Foundation (not Automattic) should publish clear guidance about the expectations on the ecosystem. These expectations should be published in a contribution agreement, which should be enforced (more on that in a moment) via contractual obligations – rather than by tenuous trademark enforcement.
If policies change, or a suggestion moves to a requirement, this must be clearly, openly communicated with appropriate timelines, and not retrospective. This ensures the Foundation can be trusted, and allows the ecosystem to act confidently, avoiding the chilling effects of uncertainty.
The WordPress Foundation must have teeth
In order to place pressure on the ecosystem to act well, the Foundation must have teeth. It must be prepared and equipped to vigorously defend the community and ecosystem.
WordCamps and community events are a vital part of the ecosystem, and many companies derive value from both sponsorships and attendance. In the same way that a code of conduct for individuals is enforced, the Foundation should be unafraid to require the contribution agreement for participation.
The central services provided by WordPress.org should also be part of the Foundation’s tools. Whilst the implementation and communication around the block on WP Engine leaved much to desire, the sentiment of companies exploiting a free service is right, and the Foundation should be equipped to use it. This includes limiting the use of WordPress.org’s APIs as well as listing in the WordPress.org directory.
In order to enable the Foundation to use it as a tool, WordPress.org must be under the Foundation’s direct control.
In addition to these tools, the Foundation also controls the trademark. While I believe the specific case against WP Engine is overextended and dangerous to the community, the Foundation should defend its trademark in legitimate cases involving market confusion.
This includes enforcement of any licensed usage of the trademark. It is clear that the primary confusion is between Automattic’s WordPress.com product and the WordPress open source project – so much so that Automattic itself has to clarify to consumers. The Foundation can continue to act as a guard against intentional confusion and check that its licensees correct and clarify these cases.5
Moving forward
Putting the Foundation at the heart of defending the ethos and freedoms gives the whole community the ability to work together.
I believe that software, and in fact entire companies, should be run in a way that assumes that the sum of the talent of people outside your walls is greater than the sum of the few you have inside. None of us are as smart as all of us. Given the right environment — one that leverages the marginal cost of distributing software and ideas — independent actors can work toward something that benefits them, while also increasing the capability of the entire community.
Matt and Automattic have given immense amounts to the project, and a stronger Foundation gives us all the capability to share the burden. It provides a path forward towards a community that is sustainable in the long term, which encourages and creates good actors, and guides others to the right path.
This fight is bigger than any two companies going head to head, and this specific legal battle obscures the big picture of what we need to achieve.
WP Engine must win the trademark battle, but the open source ecosystem must win this war.
- To be clear, I have not and will not be speaking privately to anyone directly involved in the legal dispute. Apologies if I have not replied to your messages, but I welcome public replies to anything you disagree with. [↩]
- I have worked on or with WordPress for more than 20 years, and not once have I doubted Matt’s belief in and commitment to open source. [↩]
- This steering committee need not be the Foundation’s board directly. Joost would also make an excellent member of this committee. [↩]
- Historically, Audrey fulfilled a similar role for WordPress, however this role has been absorbed into Automattic. [↩]
- While I don’t think Matt or Automattic leadership wilfully confuse these, it is important that an independent group keeps this in check, especially as Automattic continues to grow. [↩]