> if someone contributes, they accept the terms That assumes that everyone has full information of course. Discussing the terms publicly is helping everyone re

> if someone contributes, they accept the terms That assumes that everyone has full information of course. Discussing the terms publicly is helping everyone reach that state. > Nobody is asking for an uninvolved third-party to police the collaboration. And someone is asking you to police what people are chatting about here? Doesn’t feel to be an entirely thought through argument. > I'd also be careful attributing these actions to malice without further motive I don’t actually care if they are “malicious” or “inept” or “ill informed” or anything else. In fact I think someone was excited about the open collaboration, and someone else at the company was worried about losing business opportunities and that is how we ended up with this situation. Maybe it was even the same person at different times. Maybe they heard about open source but never really understood the concept, and the motivations of people participating in it. Or maybe they are just as greedy as they appear to be. Who knows and who cares. What matters is that this is a rough deal and people should not play within their rules.