As stated multiple times in the linked discussion: the licensing of the open source code is not the issue. It's the use of the trademark, and making their fork look like an officially endorsed one.
And the fork author was given a oppertunity to remediate without further drama. Instead, the fork author doubled down, where the possible reasons for that behavior are hard to interpret in good faith.
Yes, one of the complexities of open source licensing that people do not understand is that most copyright licenses assign only copyright and that copyright is a distinct and different concept than patents and trademarks.