"WordPress.org Temporarily Lifts Ban on WP Engine Amid Ongoing Dispute"

WordPress.org has lifted its ban on hosting provider WP Engine until October 1, following a block that hindered numerous sites from updating plugins and themes, potentially exposing them to security vulnerabilities.

The ban stemmed from tensions between WordPress co-founder Matt Mullenweg and WP Engine, largely attributed to the company’s private equity investor, Silver Lake. Mullenweg expressed concern over the impact on WP Engine customers, stating, “I’ve heard from WP Engine customers that they are frustrated that WP Engine hasn’t been able to make updates, plugin directory, theme directory, and Openverse work on their sites.” He lamented the negative effects of Silver Lake’s commercial decisions on users.

Mullenweg clarified that WP Engine was aware of the risks involved when it chose not to enter into a commercial licensing agreement with WordPress. He criticized the company’s leadership, noting that they had placed this risk directly on their customers.

The sudden ban drew criticism from the WordPress community, as it disrupted access to essential resources for many websites. Mullenweg had previously labeled WP Engine “Cancer to WordPress,” citing their insufficient contributions to the ecosystem. In response, WP Engine issued a cease-and-desist letter to Automattic—WordPress.com’s parent company—demanding the withdrawal of these remarks. Automattic retaliated with its own cease-and-desist letter, accusing WP Engine of trademark infringement.

This dispute has raised concerns within the broader WordPress ecosystem, which powers about 40% of websites on the internet. Users can either host their own WordPress instances or rely on services from providers like Automattic or WP Engine. Mullenweg has framed the conflict as primarily about trademarks, yet it has left many developers uncertain about their standing in the WordPress community.

In July, the WordPress Foundation filed for two new trademarks, “Managed WordPress” and “Hosted WordPress.” Developers worry these trademarks, if granted, could be wielded against them in future disputes.