I think the first thing to remember is that dotLRN did not have to be an Open Source project at all; it could have remained a work-for-hire paid for by MIT and kept for MIT's private use.
A good point. We don't have these discussions about Siemens ShareNet because we can't get the code.
Some folks seem to be saying "thank you for paying for the code, now give it to us and get lost". That's not a sustainable model for getting similar projects funded.
So before adopting it, and before making harder for those of us who do client work to convince them that there's value in making their code available, as yourselves whether we'd be better off if Al hadn't release the code at all but rather kept it for the private use of his audience? What if they'd decided to do it as a simple custom in-house project?
I'm not suggesting the two extremes are the only two points on the continuum, of course. But it is worth asking yourself "What alternatives did Al have to setting himself up as a target by inviting the community to help determine the governance structure for dotLRN?".
Someone asked if MIT's in the business of making money. Funders talk about building organizations that attract more funding (as is happening with the University of Heidelberg) not to make money but rather to leverage their funding.
This is why so many grants to non-profits are 1:1 or 1:2 matches (in other words you get $X if you can raise $X or $1/2X from somewhere else). Match grants account for about 50% of the non-government grant funding for most small to medium non-profits in my case. It's all about leverage.
