EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying the C&D was wrong. Trademarks must be actively defended and I'm not offended that they did so. I just remain unconvinced that Leah Rowe was trying to create another GNU Boot project.
<https://web.archive.org/web/20230719185342/https://libreboot...>
then you might agree that GNU Boot may have a point that the web page is (or was) using the name “GNU Boot” confusingly. Accordingly, they asked it to be changed, albeit somewhat confrontationally and brusquely.
They (GNU Boot) don't want her help, and I understand why they don't like her. The fact she is making more drama from it is more proof that she is not trustworthy.
EDIT: I was wrong
Everyone is still free to fork GNU Boot, even if the maintainers don't "want help". Also Leah seems to be the upstream maintainer. Reusing the name for a fork is of course not the best thing to do, but it was promptly changed when requested.
And publishing a C&D is not really making drama. Transparency is important.
EDIT: Also have to point out that the sender of the C&D wasn't among those expelled from Libreboot in 2021, they merely object to the inclusion of binary blobs, as per http://libreboot.at , so there isn't "personal drama" in this.
Extra sad since Leah was one of the few high-profile people willing to publicly defend RMS, a position I really respected: https://web.archive.org/web/20210826050949/https://libreboot...
And I can't blame her for not feeling that way any more:
[lammy@emi] curl -I https://libreboot.org/news/rms.html
HTTP/2 301
date: Sun, 30 Jul 2023 04:04:13 GMT
location: https://libreboot.org/news/gnuboot.html