1) This is a preliminary injunction, not a decision. An injunction which resets a situation to the former status quo pending a decision isn't all that unusual.
2) I don't think the issue here is so much a "warranty" as much as that Automattic (et al) set out to discriminate against WPEngine to obtain a business advantage. If Automattic wanted to shut down the WordPress plugin repository entirely, they'd be within their rights to do so. (It'd be business suicide, of course - but the point is that they could.)
If Matt hadn't tried to extort WP Engine he would have been perfectly within his right to say "large hosts have to pay to use the WordPress plugin directory". The injunction is purely about one specific company who was allegedly harmed by Automattic.
It’d make sense for a true non-profit to ask all hosting companies and other high volume users to help fund it, but if it’s not a fully-owned subsidiary of Automattic that’d be everyone, not just when he needs leverage against one company.
This injunction is against WPcom (a for profit entity) and not WPorg. Matt conducted tortious interference. This sets zero precedent on OSS maintainers.
Not really. The court order is to restore things to the status quo of 3 months ago, to require that Matt undo all of the things he specifically had to single out to do to fuck over WPEngine. If Matt hadn't specifically singled out WPEngine, and instead decided to stop providing the website to everybody, there wouldn't have been much of a case anyone could bring.
> However, I say that with not fully understanding the seperation of actions between Automattic the company and Matt in his own personal capacity.
As I understand it, everything Wordpress is Matt in three trenchcoats. Certainly, that's how he's pushing it in his defense filings in this lawsuit.
Automattic and the Wordpress Foundation are both Matt's to use as he sees fit. There isn't a meaningful distinction between him and his organizations.