Let's put the trademark transfer and subsequent relicensing part aside, because I think we agree on that.
> Matt tried to put Wordpress.org as a 501(c)(3) but they ran into problems, e.g. it was a lead gen for paid plug-ins that Automattic owned. So Matt has used his and Automattic resources for wordpress.org for a long time. You can read more about this in the WPEngine suit (page 12).
Where in the lawsuit does it mention that "they ran into problems" transferring operation of dot org to the 501(c)(3)? All I see on page 12 is:
> Until recently, Defendants had given the WordPress community the impression that wordpress.org—the repository for the WordPress software and plugins—was owned and controlled by the WordPress Foundation.
Edit: I found it from a link in a different comment:
There is some more discussion here. [1]
I have no reason to doubt him...wordpress.org does support significant commercial activity, and even if it did go through, would likely require much more conflict/recusal issues. Not surprising he decided to pay taxes on an entity that probably runs at a loss anyway!
> Matt tried to put Wordpress.org as a 501(c)(3) but they ran into problems, e.g. it was a lead gen for paid plug-ins that Automattic owned. So Matt has used his and Automattic resources for wordpress.org for a long time. You can read more about this in the WPEngine suit (page 12).
Where in the lawsuit does it mention that "they ran into problems" transferring operation of dot org to the 501(c)(3)? All I see on page 12 is:
> Until recently, Defendants had given the WordPress community the impression that wordpress.org—the repository for the WordPress software and plugins—was owned and controlled by the WordPress Foundation.
Edit: I found it from a link in a different comment:
https://www.pluginvulnerabilities.com/2024/10/28/matt-mullen... (primarily https://x.com/photomatt/status/1840948013360910448)
A more appropriate question perhaps: can a lawyer specialising in US nonprofits corroborate Matt's claim?