[patrickhogan1]

They haven't yet, but given the situation, if other open-source foundations, controlled by corporations like Automattic, start acting this way, it sets a dangerous precedent. Open source is like free speech—you can't support free speech and then suddenly claim it's only for you, not for others. Automattic's main argument seems to be, "But they're private equity baddies."

[keane]

Are you unfamiliar with other open-source project’s trademark protections?

From Red Hat’s: “Nothing in these Guidelines is meant to limit your rights under the terms of a free and open source software license. Trademarks and copyright are different rights, so regardless of what rights or permissions you may or may not have to use the Red Hat Marks, you always have all your rights under any applicable free and open source software licenses.”

The Mozilla Foundation is not going to let you call your Softonic/CNET/SourceForge download site "The Most Trusted Firefox Tech Company" or your distribution "The most trusted Firefox download" and if you do (as WP Engine did in their marketing) the EFF is not going to work for free to defend you.

[patrickhogan1]

The trademark argument is a smokescreen. Just watch Matt’s video—he clearly uses the word “contribute” in the context of source code.

Additionally, you’re required to defend your trademark to maintain your rights. So why is this issue surfacing now, after 14 years of inaction?

[keane]

I think you may be mistaken. My understanding is that while courts encourage trademark owners to pursue timely enforcement, the Lanham Act does not mention a time limit. Maybe their use of the marks has changed over the years? A court will decide.