That’s not how to be persuasive.

I agree with your assessment that the problem is that SMF was set up as an LLC instead of an NPO, which rendered code to be proprietary. The person in sole power clearly knows how a corporation is run, and she hasn’t done anything that is unusual for a corporation (establishing not just copyright but proprietary intellectual property claims, the latter of which runs counter to open source coding). The latest Loyalty Agreement isn’t unusual for a corporation either, including any non-compete clauses.

She would have made a helluva CEO somewhere, but the running of SMF as a corporation with proprietary intellectual property claims on the code puts user support right down the crapper. I’ve been at the receiving end of that more than once.

I don’t like what’s happened at SMF anymore than the next joe, but I don’t see talks progressing well either given the vitriol posted by BOTH sides.

Look–we users expect to be treated respectfully as customers, and there are some Friends who don’t think so, as if there’s zero competition out there. Treat your customers like crap and that’s the best persuasion to use others’ software not yours.

Face it–customer support is critical and withholding that support in the name of proprietary intellectual property is the kiss of death even for the LLC, because the reason why support is critical is because SMF’s current batch of developments is buggy. VERY buggy.

There will be declining demand if these conditions persist.

In the event that agreement cannot be achieved given the ongoing hostilities on both sides, I would suggest a clean break and start over, so as to avoid infringement–AND–work on getting it more turnkey than SMF.

He who has the fewest bugs wins.