Adjusting their product names sounds like a small change they could have made to avoid antagonising a close partner.
Running their own plug-in mirror infrastructure is something companies often do to reduce the risk from relying on a third party.
Similarly having some stake in the development of WordPress reduces risk of them being shut out if there is a license change that necessitates a fork.
Less about caving in on wishes as more that it's risky to choose both to rely on a third party and wind them up at the same time.
> Adjusting their product names sounds like a small change they could have made to avoid antagonising a close partner.
WP Engine updated everything that was potentially infringing two weeks ago:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Wordpress/comments/1ftg581/finally_...
I am curious to see what many WP employees think of all this.
Also, the recent ACF business would show that WPE were being stewards of one of the backbone plugins of the ecosystem.
Demonstrably not true. Matt may not be happy with the amount of resource, but people associated with WPE make all sorts of contributions to the Wordpress community.
The Wordpress license does not require any contributions. If they wanted that to be forced they should have licensed accordingly. To demand payment to Matt's for-profit company and withhold access to the non-profit Wordpress.org is a shakedown akin to demanding protection money, full stop.
Instead, they licensed under Stallman's GPL2. Given his general ethos around freedom of software, I would honestly be curious to hear his thoughts on using trademark as a cudgel to arbitrarily prevent otherwise-permitted uses of GPL-licensed code.
[1] https://wordpress.org/book/2015/11/the-blogging-software-dil...