Thanks, I was definitely missing some of this context. Forking is probably the appropriate response if the contributing community no longer trusts the acquiring

Thanks, I was definitely missing some of this context. Forking is probably the appropriate response if the contributing community no longer trusts the acquiring company. In an active open-source project, the value of the software lies with the contributors anyway, so as long as they're unified Muse group doesn't have much power or recourse. That said, I personally think this fork is a clumsy attempt thus far. If there truly is a rift so wide as the parent comment claims, it probably calls for a total rebrand. The way it's currently positioned makes it look like the author is simply attempting to apply pressure to get Muse to change its behavior, but based on this context I doubt that's going to be a viable long-term strategy.