My answer doesn't change for F/OSS, which has been widely mistaken to subsume open governance. Their underlying motivation does differ: the free software moveme

My answer doesn't change for F/OSS, which has been widely mistaken to subsume open governance. Their underlying motivation does differ: the free software movement is concerned about user's freedom with respect to softwares and viral licenses were just means to that freedom, while the open source software movement cares more about the collaboration in the development phase but doesn't dictate the exact nature of collaboration, which the term "open governance" seeks to clarify. While my point might be already a lost cause (sigh), I believe this distinction is very important because we don't know how to do open governance in general. We have a relatively strong case for F/OSS licensing mainly because it was easy to follow and therefore spreaded like fire. But every sizable project trying open governance is different from each other. In this regard: > countries shouldn’t dictate who can and cannot work for FOSS projects. This statement is irrelevant because it was the maintainers' decision to decide "who can and cannot work" for the Linux kernel. It's just your ideal---and honestly speaking, also my ideal---, and most real world F/OSS projects suffer from at least one issue against that ideal. We can't talk about how to achieve or move closer to the ideal without the correct understanding of terminology and situation, which your comment did (and still) miss. For example, the correct starting point would be this: why did many large projects have to create legal entities in some jurisdiction?