Let me spoil it a little then :) I use the word "participatory" because it seems like a lot of complaints about the current state of free and open source softw

Let me spoil it a little then :) I use the word "participatory" because it seems like a lot of complaints about the current state of free and open source software hinge on a lack of reciprocity. You have the individual maintainer of a small project, who feels burned because there are people out there making money on her back. You have companies like Red Hat making life harder for CentOS because Oracle are a big pile of freeloading jerks (old news, I know). You have other companies like Google strategically open sourcing some of their technologies for commercial advantage. We have complaints about maintainers who orphan their projects, and we argue about whether it's OK to complain about not getting something for nothing any more. It seems like all of this strife comes from disagreements about what expectations we should have for all of the stakeholders -- owners, users, contributors, and maintainers. Not all of this can be spelled out in a license, as we've seen in the rise of CLAs and COCs. And so I use "participatory" in the sense that participating in third-way open source would impose some obligations in addition to the entitlements enumerated by the license.