Long time WordPress agency owner here. At the heart of this - if you consider it generously - is a principle that we can possibly all sign up to, namely that "large commercial entities" should (should from a moral, not legal standpoint) "pay back" to the open source software that makes them money. The principle however has been totally undermined by MM's actions, which have been completely out of line. His behaviour…
> Simply switching the name and keeping the slug - and thus the 2+million sites - should be thought of as theft. He probably is trying to make a point what WPEngine is doing (based on his own perspective)
There are certain implied rules to FOSS:
1. Free software is an ideological battleground, and as long as you abide by the license you're fine. Most GNU packages.
2. Open Source without a single backing entity is a meritocracy (or tries, sometimes a little too hard) and you can help improve it for everyone. Like the Kernel.
3. Open Source from a single backing entity is an insurance policy against that company failing or overcharging - at least in principle - if that works is often up to adoption, see the state of various Hashicorp products and their forks. You'll also never get your PR merged if it isn't critical, you aren't a customer or the PR misaligns with the company's strategy. I've even seen this happen on an Apache project, so that's not a guarantee of being group 1 or 2.
Matt has always pretended he belongs to group 1 with incidentally aligned commercial interest, but it turns out WordPress is group 3 with a server dependency twist. He wouldn't even approve a config constant to change the default update/catalog endpoints.