I believe that we should give a shit, and it does matter. The "balkanization" of open-source licensing into more restrictive versions is ultimately going to adversely impact all of us.
And, if Matt had not chosen to be an asshole, would this issue have gotten the prominence that it has got?
Also, WPE could easily have taken the wind out of Matt's sails by declaring their (direct or indirect) commercial support for WordPress.org while reducing to pay money to Automattic. As far as I know, they have chosen to not do so.
For all I know, Matt may lose the battle; but, open source would lose the war if companies and individuals continue to use the kind of arguments that WPE and it's defenders are making - that, they are legally not obligated to care two bits about the open source software on which their entire businesses are built, leave apart what is moral.
> And, if Matt had not chosen to be an asshole, would this issue have gotten the prominence that it has got?
The issues here are precisely the actions by Matt, so it is reasonable to conclude that had Matt not caused those issues by acting as he has, the issues would not exist.
> open source would lose the war if companies and individuals continue to use the kind of arguments that WPE and it's defenders are making - that, they are legally not obligated to care two bits about the open source software on which their entire businesses are built
I don't believe this to be true, but if it is, the responsibilities lies with Matt for allowing it with permissive licensing and trademarks. Neither WPEngine, nor you or I, are obliged to care about what Matt wants us to care about, or to obey Matt's decrees, and the sole reason is Matt's actions.
The whole point of contracts and licenses is to explicitly spell out what is allowed and expected. I mean, who is to say "how much" support is expected if it's not written down. Matt wanted 8%. Why not 15%, or 1%?
The idea that users of open source software "owe" something back to the original developers is revisionist history, and if you don't like how users are using your software, why did you open source it with a permissive license in the first place? There are plenty more restrictive licenses (e.g. GPL) that support a more "if you take you have to give" model. Saying "well, we wanted to open source it but not that kind of open source" is BS.
And, if Matt had not chosen to be an asshole, would this issue have gotten the prominence that it has got?
Also, WPE could easily have taken the wind out of Matt's sails by declaring their (direct or indirect) commercial support for WordPress.org while reducing to pay money to Automattic. As far as I know, they have chosen to not do so.
For all I know, Matt may lose the battle; but, open source would lose the war if companies and individuals continue to use the kind of arguments that WPE and it's defenders are making - that, they are legally not obligated to care two bits about the open source software on which their entire businesses are built, leave apart what is moral.