As we introduced in our previous article, "WordPress Officially Bans WP Engine ," WordPress has decided to take a clear stance against WP Engine, a move that has sparked considerable controversy and discussion. In that article, we provided a brief summary of the situation, explaining how WordPress banned WP Engine from its platform, or rather, from its repositories, raising questions about the appropriateness and impartiality of this decision.
We subsequently explored this topic in more detail in another article titled "WordPress.org Bans WP Engine: Here's Why Matt Mullenweg Is Clearly Wrong ," where we analyzed in detail the GPL 2 license under which WordPress was released, demonstrating how Mullenweg's decision contradicts the founding principles of the open source project . The GPL 2 license guarantees users and developers the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute the software, and the retaliatory ban appears to violate these very principles.
Following this in-depth analysis, we decided to directly address the issue by commenting on a post on the official WordPress Facebook page . Our comment, based on well-documented and accurate technical and legal considerations, highlighted the inconsistencies in the decision made by WordPress and Matt Mullenweg. We expressed our disagreement calmly and professionally, seeking to foster a constructive dialogue, as you can read in the original English screenshot below (and the related Italian translation below).
I don’t understand where the problem is. After all, WordPress is GPL-licensed software, so it can be modified and redistributed, even in a very invasive way, without having to inform anyone. Let’s also remember that WP Engine uses WordPress software as a software-as-a-service or, at most, as a platform-as-a-service model. Therefore, according to the GPL license, they are not even obliged to share the source code.
I don’t even understand under what obligation Matt Mullenweg DEMANDS that WP Engine pays anything or contributes to the project or community efforts. Ethically and morally, you may be right, but LEGALLY, ABSOLUTELY NOT. The GPL license does not require you to give anything back, neither financially nor in terms of contributions to the community. Therefore, what you are doing is illegitimate and illegal, dear MATT.
As far as trademarking goes, WP ENGINE is not confusing. WP stands for WordPress but is not licensed or trademarked, and as you and AUTOMATTIC state, it can be used. If it were called “WordPress Engine,” you would be right, but it is called WP Engine, so dear MATT, you are OBVIOUSLY WRONG here too.
I believe this move is simply intended to push consumers towards automated solutions, such as WordPress.com or Automattic's other high-performance hosting services, WP-VIP.com or Pressable.
It's time to step back, dear MATT, and for the WordPress community to distance itself from a toxic figure like you.
To our great surprise, last night, now a few days after the comment, we noticed that our comment was promptly removed and that our account was banned from the page.
While it may seem incredible that a company of the size and prestige of Automattic, the creator of the world's most popular open-source content management system, would stoop to practices that, to put it mildly, resemble those of a naughty child, this is exactly what happened. Despite the image of openness and transparency that WordPress seeks to promote, we witnessed blatantly censorious and unprofessional behavior. In the following video, we clearly demonstrate how the official WordPress Facebook page is accessible and visible to anyone who isn't logged in to Facebook. However, when we log in with our account —apparently blocked for expressing an inconvenient but technically valid opinion— the page suddenly becomes unavailable. This behavior demonstrates a clear attempt to filter and suppress criticism, rather than engage in constructive dialogue and engage with differing opinions.
This episode clearly demonstrates how WordPress, and specifically Automattic's leadership, rather than welcoming constructive, fact-based criticism, chooses to stifle voices that dare question their decisions. Our analysis was based on rigorously documented technical and legal considerations and was free of offensive language. Yet, the response was to delete the comment and prevent further interaction, a sign of a deliberate desire to avoid public discussion, especially when this could highlight potential errors or inconsistencies in their decisions.
This form of censorship should be cause for reflection for the entire WordPress community, which has always been based on the principles of openness, collaboration, and transparency. If even a platform designed to be a bastion of free expression and open source development begins to close itself off and stifle dissent, what can we expect for the future? The community risks becoming an environment where only voices aligned with management have space, and anyone who dares raise legitimate criticisms, based on concrete facts and technical foundations, could be excluded or silenced. This raises a troubling question: is WordPress truly championing software freedom and transparency, or is it gradually transforming into a controlled and authoritarian environment?
We urge all our readers to stay informed and not be intimidated by these practices. Keep following our blog for further updates on this story and other topics related to the world of WordPress and hosting.
We warmly invite you to share this news on your social media feeds so that people know what’s happening at the top of WordPress.
