How to distract from taking code proprietary (was: code hosting)

I wrote:

> Immediately after Dachary's warning, VA Software Corporation trotted out
> Patrick McGovern (SourceForge.net Director) to speak with forked tongue
> about (loosely paraphrased from memory) how Dachary's concerns were mistaken
> and that VA was totally devoted to keep SourceForge a real open source
> project for the foreseeable future, tra la.

Found Pat's comments, here:  
https://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=23673&threshold=1&commentsort=0&mode=thread&cid=2555099

Small excerpt:

  My name is Patrick McGovern and I manage SourceForge.net. I wanted 
  to take a moment to address the issues that Loic raised in his 
  recent article.
  [...]
  SourceForge.net, OSDN and VA Linux systems are committed to the 
  Open Source community. 

Turns out, not so much.  

Of course, it's possible that Pat believed that -- but one could not
help noticing that Pat, in purporting to 'address the issues' Dachary
raised, said absolutely nothing about the primary one, the sudden and
highly suspicious unexplained request for copyright assignment to VA
Linux Systems Inc. of any contributed open source.  Pretty much the only
reason a for-profit corporation requests donation of copyright ownership
is so they can adopt proprietary licensing and include
community-contributed code in the proprietary product.  (The inevitable
claim 'It must be OK because FSF does it' fails because FSF could be
suspected of many things but taking things proprietary is not among
them.)

Pat posted the same comments on Advogato 
(https://web.archive.org/web/20170628193845/http:/www.advogato.org/article/376.html), 
and again ducked the main point, as did Chris DiBona (/me waves).

And you'll notice that few people called them on it.  Anyway, admittedly
the example is 18 years old, but this is one of the ways the open source
community gets conned -- by spokescritters dancing all around the point.