The reality and the lines are far less clear than you describe it.
Your response ignores many things:
1. WP.org is supposedly NOT part of the foundation, but something of Matt/Automattic's generosity.
2. Despite this, solicits donations that seemingly go to the foundation.
3. Despite this, is hosted on the foundation's AS number.
4. WP.org may not be under obligation to provide services, but when it chooses to discontinue services to one independent for profit user of the open source software, but not to another ostensibly independent for profit user of the open source software that just so happens to be owned by the person donating the services, then there is a conflict.
5. When the open source software, which has a hard coded news feed source that is mostly written by said owner, and this is used to post articles disparaging that other company, directly to their customers, this is also a conflict.
My question, related to the parent's post: why is WP.org under any obligation to provide any service to WP Engine and its users?
And you're saying that they targeted one user specifically ... I say, where's the problem?
To make a proper analogy, if Google abused Wikipedia or the Internet Archive, shouldn't these non-profits have the power to ban one specific user from abusing their free services?
And yes, Automattic pays WP.org's bills. I would prefer independence ... maybe if more companies contributed, that would happen.
> to provide any service to WP Engine and its users?
WordPress hard codes their own URLs in their software. They don't have published pricing. There's no criteria for who should have to pay unless they're WPE.
By the argument you're making, what makes it okay for anyone to run WordPress on a server without the host of that server paying a fee to WordPress? There's nothing that sets WPE apart from any other service out there that hosts WordPress except that Matt M decided he's on a crusade.
What if the open source software had hardcoded links to check for updates of itself and for downloading of plugins? Would that change their obligations in providing services for updates and plugin downloads?
Your response ignores many things:
1. WP.org is supposedly NOT part of the foundation, but something of Matt/Automattic's generosity.
2. Despite this, solicits donations that seemingly go to the foundation.
3. Despite this, is hosted on the foundation's AS number.
4. WP.org may not be under obligation to provide services, but when it chooses to discontinue services to one independent for profit user of the open source software, but not to another ostensibly independent for profit user of the open source software that just so happens to be owned by the person donating the services, then there is a conflict.
5. When the open source software, which has a hard coded news feed source that is mostly written by said owner, and this is used to post articles disparaging that other company, directly to their customers, this is also a conflict.