What if the underlying assumption of the conversation / debate isn't accurate at all? What if there is no tragedy of the commons? I'm saying, what if Matt is eager and earnest in his efforts to get large companies contributing their fair share (even if the methods were a little too direct and directed for my particular taste), under an incorrect assumption. We like to talk about the tragedy of the commons as a very real thing, a very real possibility. But what if it's not? What if, unlike a strip of land that could actually be over-farmed, there is no cost to duplicate and share the code bits that are WP? Further, I know the example was the difference between two companies - where one invests in R&D and the other doesn't - but a massive investment in R&D doesn't equal a guaranteed success. So again, the assumptions are incorrect. The beauty of the four freedoms is that they're freedoms, not obligations. The license says I can do things like read, learn, adapt and share code without constraints. Giving back isn't really giving back if it's forced. It's not freedom if strings are attached. The software owes us nothing. We owe it nothing. And the worst scenario here would be that we're all fighting over an assumption (the tragedy of the commons) that may be incorrect. And if we're seriously worried about a scenario (that I don't think actually exists), then we must re-define what "contribution" means. - Because creating plugins for free is contributing - Because maintaining plugins is contributing - Because speaking at conferences is contributing - Because organizing events is contributing - Because innovating is contributing - Because sponsoring events is contributing It's not just about hours against core. Or at least it shouldn't be. But again, that assumes that if someone doesn't step into that contributor role, and only takes, that everyone will be worse off. What I've seen over the last two decades is that when someone steps away, the gap is often filled by someone else. So I'm left asking, what if this assumption that we're basing this entire debate on, is incorrect.