The direct quote in the reference was that they'd be sued if they "moved forward to commercialize it". To me, that doesn't imply that they'd sue if the project was kept open source?
Sure, I might be missing something (I've been writing stupid error checking code most of the night.)
"Commercial" is not the opposite of "open source" or "free software", "proprietary" is. And "proprietary" software can be sold or given away in a non-commercial, or non-profit making manner just like FLOSS. The two issues are almost entirely orthogonal.
The direct quote in the reference was that they'd be sued if they "moved forward to commercialize it". To me, that doesn't imply that they'd sue if the project was kept open source?
Sure, I might be missing something (I've been writing stupid error checking code most of the night.)