Totally understood thanks for your objective point of view. People are not perfect same can...
Glad to hear that you have given the issue some thought, one suggestion is that the goal of public ownership be heavily emphasized with monthly meetings whose only purpose is to discuss the status of this final event for the 'company' and what needs to be done to continue to move the 'company' towards that goal. The reason for making the meetings singularly focused on the specific goal of releasing the whole system to public ownership and not discussing the goal as part of a list of agenda's at a regular board meeting is to make the meeting feel like a very special event. This will induce a sense in all the participants that the whole purpose for their involvement is a sacred and solemn duty. Such practices are based on social engineering (i.e.. people tend to go with the crowd, so to speak, they follow a group thinking and look towards others to indicate whether or not the are doing what the group expects of them, if not they will feel pressure to conform to the group even if they do not agree with the group, especially when the goal is given the importance of higher social and emotional meaning... it works, very well in fact, even in extreme circumstances, just ask any German who was an adult during WWII.) Another thing you might consider is a strongly worded, legal sounding TOS and contracts for each type of participant, this is an effective way of discouraging decent (even if the contracts have no teeth, perception is on the order of 90% of the cause for compliance.) I think a combination, with the two concepts heavily woven together in all documentation that relates to either subject and constant reminders in just about any kind of communication media within and without the 'company' would be particularly effective. (Of course, caution would be in order, too much emphases could cause desensitization, undoing a lot of hard work... so maybe the use of a subconscious indicator like a meaningful symbol would be more effective but not be overbearing... think about Germany again, what symbol comes to mind?)
Since we are talking about perception, let me mention how that affects business decision. You are correct about the fact that there are lots of open source projects that are not being adopted by business.' There are, however, many examples of once open-source projects going private or being sold to industry, so it can happen. Most of the open-source projects of note are geared towards developing software that already exists commercially but are very expensive. So the reason for starting many of these open-source projects is because a group of people, or an individual, wants to benefit from the program features but can not afford, or does not want to spend the money to acquire the program. In lieu of these fact, since the market is already represented by commercial software, there is little incentive for a company to purchase or steal open-source developments unless there is a true innovation produced by the open-source project. Alternatively, to a lesser extent, other reasons for starting an open-source project is that it may have been necessitated by a student project and randomly selected, additionally, groups or an individual might be inspired by curiosity about how code for a specific type of software might function or these individuals believe that they can make a specific type of software better than what is available commercially. Or, it could easily be any combination of a number of these or similar reasons. Other open-source projects of lesser notability are often in niche` areas of which the general public has little interest. A few examples would be: Specific applications needed by specific industry, areas of scientific research, purely academic in nature and many other specialized areas and professions. And lets not forget those whose reasons are simply that they love to code or the challenge of the coding, was bored and had nothing better to do or inspired by a dream or grand vision, and those who believe they can solve a problem, the list goes on... Most of the open-source projects that have gone private are from the second and third grouping of sources, they are the areas of interest that is most likely to produce something unique, innovative and disruptive to the status quo...
Your project falls under the specific niche` category. What makes your project more likely to have issues with privatization and other major concerns is that it involves several key elements that will bring it a great deal of attention. Most notably, MONEY. But besides that, such systems as yours are a threat to many of the powers within human society. To name the most significant: Politics, Big Industry, World Banking and Trading Organizations and a host of very old and long established Institutions. All of which have a vested interest in the potential effects of systems such as yours on these establishments seats of Power and Prestige. I would not underestimate the voracity and aggressive potential of these powerful, well entrenched beasts of human pride and social positioning if they perceive themselves as having been backed into a corner with few options to escape. It is best to recognize and address any potential threats from any of these institutions to our freedoms as early as possible. That way, we as a group are prepared and can address such issues with how we write are code and organize the structure of our systems so that: One. There is nothing these institutions can do to stop us - Two. That the old system of profit and power will still have a say, but rather only in the manner that we design into our systems that insures fairness and justice for ALL, and not in the specialized way that easily allows the system to be manipulated by bad players such as the current system allows.