[huskyr]

I doubt many developers will get on a WP Engine fork of WordPress. Maybe if they funded an independent non-profit foundation that would take care of a fork that could work, but you still need the traction of the community to make it a success.

[runako]

If it were WPE only, that is true. But right now there are some very large companies also in the crosshairs as possibly next on the list:

- GoDaddy

- Amazon (AWS)

- Bluehost

- Dreamhost

and about a thousand smaller hosts, all of whom would be very unhappy to suddenly have to pay 8% of revenue to Automattic.

A real community-owned fork could quickly get a lot of traction.

[bigiain]

And companies like WHM/cPanel and Plesk - who provide 1 click Wordpress installs for a huge number of otherwise non-Wordpress specialist web hosting companies.

I'd guess a _huge_ part of WordPress's "customer acquisition" comes from small businesses who started out on cheap shared hosting for their email/dns/website using cPanel or Plesk (or similar). That's clearly a big market, given how much Wix and SquareSpace spend advertising for it.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn cPanel had as many WordPress using customers as WPEngine - and it's now owned by PE as well.

> A real community-owned fork could quickly get a lot of traction.

I suspect a WordPress fork developed by a consortium of companies who offer Wp as a Service? Perhaps a having them all fund a non-profit Mozilla like foundation (well, Mozilla circa 2015, before they decided to become and AI and Ad company who's apparent goal is to attract more and more sketchy grifting C level execs and make them rich).

[belorn]

How would wordpress.org go after those in this scenario? The original trademark claim seems a bit far fetched in order those other hosting providers (are they using wordpress trademark and branding in marketing?). If they are, how much impact would it do to them if they stopped?

Amazon has a product they call Amazon lightsail. The only trademark issue I can identify is that they use the wordpress logo, which is fairly simple to remove if wordpress decide that it is no longer allowed. Do anyone else see something there that could be a trademark issue?

[mbreese]

I don't know about that. I think there are many different definitions of success here. WP Engine would want to make sure that it's customers are well taken care of and have a solid web hosting experience. That would be success to them. I'm not sure how much they would care about outside users or developers (they might care a lot, but I don't know). But, the real question is -- would a fork benefit their customers?

If the answer is yes, then I expect to see a fork happen quickly. That may be the only way (or best way) for them to keep some degree of control over their system.

[skmurphy]

"WP Engine would want to make sure that it's customers are well taken care of and have a solid web hosting experience."

This is certainly one of their goals, if only to prevent or reduce churn.

But WP Engine is now owned by Silver Lake, a private equity firm, they no doubt have aggressive growth and profitability targets. Anything that injects confusion into their branding or increases costs is counter to their goals

The real question is the 8% "contribution" that WP is asking for cheaper than other alternatives. The lawsuits are cheaper if they win, but a dead loss if they don't.

[zeronine]

All a new foundation needs for traction is a policy against admin dashboard spam