@davidgerard Ooft, lads, that "we don't believe in opt-in because we don't know what it means" thing is a death-knell. Proper jumping in with the techbro PUA creep crowd there.
I'd say that's a pretty solid litmus test for when an OSS project has passed the point of no-return under its current governance. The project may technically remain "open-source", but the point of it being open-source in the first place has been entirely defeated.
Don't need to bother inspecting the source for malware when they're proudly blogposting their way through admitting that they've given the entire company over to the purveyors of malware-in-a-guy-fawkes-mask.
When the entire notion of consent gets reframed so much that they've torn the picture, done a serial-killer magazine montage with the text from it and, oooh, whadya know, it comes out saying "i tHe UnDeRsInEd Do HeArBy gIvE cOnCeNt FoR [eVrYtHiNg]", the source licensing becomes irrelevant. It's radioactive either way. It's just a matter of time before you start losing fingers and toes to it.