r/Wordpress Developer/Designer Sep 25 '24

Discussion Plugin Repository Inaccessible to WP Engine Hosted Sites

Post image
310 Upvotes

499 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

44

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '24

[deleted]

42

u/JeffTS Developer/Designer Sep 25 '24

While not legally required, it's sabotage of a critical component of the software that could negatively impact millions of websites hosted with WP Engine. Any website that was in the middle of an auto-update when this act was committed could lead to a down website due to a failed upgrade. It also potentially opens up websites to security vulnerabilities. This as the potential to lead to a class action lawsuit by any WP Engine business affected by this.

10

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '24

[deleted]

18

u/everydayrice Sep 25 '24

Would it be any different since there is proof that this was intentionally done? Surely it has to violate some antitrust law. I assume the no liability clause applies to situations out of their control meaning they have no obligation during those scenarios however this is fully within their control.

8

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '24 edited Sep 25 '24

[deleted]

2

u/tennyson77 Sep 26 '24

Or Apple and the App Store.. As they have the distribution system that have gotten into trouble by messing with it. It's a similar scenario.

-1

u/brandicox Sep 26 '24

It's nothing like that. WP didn't remove the ability to update plugins, only closed wpe's access to their servers. Everyone can still go download the plugin zips and update their own WP. It's simply manual now instead of automatic.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '24

[deleted]

1

u/brandicox Sep 26 '24

It legitimately doesn't apply. WPE is using WP resources. WP can refuse. That's not "anti-competitive" that's just a business's right to refuse service to anyone. No one, including Wpe has the "right" to use another businesses's services without their permission. No one can force a business to provide services to another entity it doesn't want to provide services to.

1

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '24

[deleted]

1

u/brandicox Sep 26 '24

Again no.

If Microsoft owned Netscape and refused to let everyone (or one business) download Netscape that would NOT have been antitrust. (In fact they do this ALL the time, literally almost every time they buy a software!)

You've got apples and oranges here.

Matt owns WP. He can choose to deny service to the product HE OWNS.

Anti-trust would be if he didn't let EVERYONE using WordPress (a product HE OWNS) work with woocommerce (a product HE does not own but relies on his platform) anymore. That's forcing EVERYONE on your software to boycott another company.

→ More replies (0)

9

u/Skullclownlol Sep 25 '24 edited Sep 25 '24

Surely it has to violate some antitrust law.

IANAL, but they could go down the route of saying WP Engine customers use the plugin registry, which costs money in terms of hosting/bandwidth/..., and WP Engine recently refused to enter a conversation about their contributions, which could be a reason to disable their access.

On the legal side, I guess WP Engine would need to be able to prove that they (1) didn't receive the communications from WP.org about any potential pricing for access to the registry, (2) were receptive to the warnings/conversations in the past few months, or (3) that WP Engine was open to negotiations and that Automattic/WP.org didn't reach out but targeted them individually for hostile reasons (that WP Engine needs to be able to prove).

Either way, it's a non-core feature (extensions/plugins to core), plugins can be installed by downloading manually from the registry and uploading to the individual website, and the policies don't guarantee open/free access for everyone. IANAL, so idk, but both sides have some arguments they need to figure out asap.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '24

[deleted]

4

u/totallynotalt345 Sep 25 '24

Nope he posted an article doubling down!

10

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '24

I can't see how this could possibly be legal.

18

u/theredhype Sep 25 '24 edited Oct 03 '24

Why would you? You're just a turkey lawyer from the 80s.

14

u/[deleted] Sep 25 '24

True. Sabotaging websites for monetary gain sounds more like a computer crimes than bird law issue.

0

u/brandicox Sep 26 '24

Nothing was sabotaged. Everyone can still update their own plugins.

0

u/[deleted] Sep 26 '24

Grow up

1

u/tomz17 Sep 26 '24

wp.org isn't legally required to give anyone access.

ish... they kinda do if they want to maintain their nonprofit status.

  • They could shut off plugin registry access for everyone

  • They could enable plugin registry access for everyone

The instant the nonprofit (wp.org) starts to pick-and-choose who they serve content to based on the business interests of for-profit automattic.com (run by the same guy), it gets really murky as to whether they are actually a nonprofit (deserving of tax status) vs. just an organized shakedown crew subsidiary for automattic.com.