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.
They explicitly call their engine Wordpress more than once in those examples. You cannot do that.
Yes they can. It’s actually WordPress, so it’s nominative.
No, they can’t, because no, it isn’t. That’s what trademarks are for. You can’t use a trademarked name to refer to your competing product.
Open source projects are generally permissive in terms of people repackaging their code for distribution for different platforms within reasonable guidelines, but even that is a sufficient change that they aren’t obligated to allow their trademarks to be used that way.
It is no longer Wordpress once it’s modified. That’s what trademark is for.
I think we should agree to disagree that it was modified enough here.
There is no “enough”. Any modification at all takes their permission to use their trademark.
Most allow you to do so within reasonable guidelines, but that only gives you the benefit of the doubt if it’s ambiguous. As soon as they tell you that you don’t have permission to use their trademark on your altered version, you can’t use it.
But is gatekeeping the configuration files or wrapping around the software really modification?