jonnypants83

I agree in general, but there's still a problem with encouraging people for decades to build businesses around a version of WP hardcoded to .org, not letting them "phone home," not making clear that they were building on a private company instead of a foundation with a clear mission statement, and then pulling the rug without notice. I don't think all of those steps would be legal, either.

Do you consider a site privately owned by Matt that advertises Matt's commercial products to be non-commercial because it also hosts open source code?

I don't think that's clear.

>Automattic owned 100% of the WordPress trademarks. Automattic's "Consideration" was to give all the non-commercial use of those trademarks to the WordPress Foundation.

come on, Neil... you just published 700 words on the topic. You even made flow charts! Are you now saying you don't actually have a solid understanding of the situation?

it is absolutely the case that you are required to go after infringers if you want to be able to enforce your trademark. A trademark isn't just another word for copyright. It's a signifier of a brand with consistent quality. If you let thousands of sites slide for a decade+, then it no longer conveys a consistent level of quality and when you try to enforce it the judge is likely to shut you down.

as I understand it the foundation board is matt and two people matt chose.

to be fair I think it's the most damning part for him as a person

the statements about the non-profit situation seem especially bad. He'll obviously have his own side of the story, but I'm guessing they didn't misread the tax filings.