The cost of providing free ice-cream to WPengine is $218,685 or 7.9% of wordpress.org total income! ($2,768,057). But if the people eating up all the ice-cream you give them for free take you to court.... then you gotta cut off that ice-cream. WPengine should apologise and starting slinging cash to Automattic.
WordCamp expenditures: $2,159,747 (82.81% of total expenses)
Meetup expenditures: $229,571 (8.80% of total expenses)
Total Meetup.com dues: $224,249
Total Meetup Venue rental & exp: $5,322
Operations: $218,685 (8.39% of total expenses) <------ HOSTING PLUGINS/THEMES ETC
If WP engine has taken legal action against Matt, that is extremely disrespectful, and not gracious; he even tried so do it softly via the dashboard;
"WP Engine accused Automattic and Mullenweg of not keeping their promises to run WordPress open-source projects without any constraints and giving developers the freedom to build, run, modify and redistribute the software."
What promises? People make and release software using the GPL "copyleft" license because they enjoy doing so. Everybody is free to cease doing that if they no longer enjoy it. If it no longer brings them joy. And if it is costing measurable quants of money for the non-profit .org to provide back-end services to the $100 billion dollar corporation who is profiting from using the core plugins and themes etc.
Perhaps 8% of gross is a bit much, but I don't see them counter offering 1% and a way to work up over time. They were purchased for $250 million in 2018 so they have plenty o' cash. Bad faith wpengine for trying to strip-mine WordPress like that.
1 single blocked user would be enough to justify generating a fork, so 5 blocked users seems to verify somewhat, the true stat would be number of unaccepted pull requests.
Assume a talented programmer who wishes to involve another programmer to help work on their (unaccepted by upstream and therefore mostly invisible) changes - github is then used to facilitate the work easier than setting up your own private repo. He can then approve that 3rd persons changes and move on to the next thing.
The key to it is they control the choice to accept the pull request and "make it so".
Years later, the potentially stalled upstream can "backport" the best changes from the fork if they have diverged too much to merge all of (the fork) changes into (to the main original) repo, and there is some reason to keep the stalled code alive (not saying it's stalled), or if it is still or more active probably "sideport" would be a better word, and if more advanced the best parts from Redot could be collected as a "patch" especially if it is not clear which is the most active. If Redot becomes the de factor dev version, and merging is too difficult, the original maintainer could ditch the old repo putting up a message and link to Godot non-Faggot version, fork Redot back into Godot, call it the release version, and call Redot the live public beta of the next version of Godot (this is my prediction of what will happen).
Jacob Faggot was a Swedish scientist, civil servant, and surveyor.
* this is a test of the anti-woke emergency broadcast system. Pump up the volume.
Anyone can make a fork, they don't need to justify it. I was just saying that the maybe unjustified blocking was limited to social media and did not extend to the actual development.
The reason Juan has given for blocking were github comments that were such that he had to block them. I haven't seen them so I can't verify it but the fact that it was limited to very few accounts compared to what happened on social media leads me to believe that argument.
