Violating the terms (gpl) and taking over the name/identity/accreditation are what's stealing. Not merely using or redistributing.

It's not only stealing, it's an even worse, exceptionally low form of stealing when something is already free and yet you still choose to steal it.

Open source is open source. To my best knowledge I believe its stealing if you make use of resource an individual or group of people came together to develop and add minor adjustments to it and then put it up for sale. That's stealing.

But if you willingly able to contribute back to the community with between 20 - 40% of profit generated from the open source used, is and will be considered fair play.

Stealing doesn't imply anything. It is taking someone else's posession.

In the case of gpl software, copying, and posessing a copy, and redistributing a copy of the code itself is not theft. The license grants those actions explicitly.

But the fact that the license grants those particular rights does not mean there is no license, and violating that license is exactly theft, which is what Mullenweg has done.

For someone persuing this whole pogrom under the banner of championing open source and being a good community member and challenging others integrity, this is about as hipocrytical and low as you can go. It would be a joke if it wasn't a fact.

I would not admit in public that you think that since a license does not require money, that means it has no owner or copyright and that it's impossible to steal it. Or that laws are the only thing that defines right and wrong and stealing. Money is just one of many terms in any agreement or contract or license.