> You're missing the point that WP Engine forked WooCommerce.

That point is impossible to reconcile with this phrase:

"...has been swapping out WooCommerce’s Stripe Connect Account information for its own when a user installs WooCommerce."

The verb tense "has been swapping" implies continuous repetition of the swap, not a one time fork, then "when a user installs WooCommerce" doubles down, implying it's the original code, with user install action being the time of the stealth edit.

The article's sentence is constructed incompatibly with the point you're making. Note I'm not saying your point is incorrect.

Not sure if you're a developer or not.

But it's extremely common to fork a project and keep it up to date with the latest commits from the original repository. Pretty much the standard in fact since most people just want to make a few small changes.

Isn't the "small change" here "redirecting affiliate revenue"? (This is a plugin, which apparently WPE replaced altogether, but if the only reason to do that replacement is to capture the affiliate revenue I can see the Foundation being pissed.)

It is irrelevant what the change is.

WP Engine has the legal right to make whatever change they like in their fork.

Including redirecting affiliate revenue.

I think everybody is aware of how the GPL works with respect to forking and altering software, but people seem to be confused about how the GPL works with respect to registered trademarks and online services operated by the copyright holder.

If it's any help, WPE didn't alter WooCommerce at all. WooCommerce requires a separate plugin for Stripe payments, and WPE happens to offer their own payments plugin that competes with the official WooCommerce one (and works with systems other than WooCommerce at that).

MM continues to repeat the claim that WPE modified Woo itself, so WPE's lawyers are probably adding libel to the pile of claims. I think they're still waiting for a8c to file first for PR reasons.