Having thought long and hard about the OP and the situation, I now feel I understand Newmine's concerns better and apologise for reacting as though he was being over the top. There is potential for a conflict of interest here, although I firmly believe that the core devs left the situation open for the community to discover and help resolve intentionally.
BM has always shown a very clear understanding of the importance of aligning economic incentives and from this project's inception, the core dev team have led the way in collaboration, innovation, adaptation and integrity. Whatever model is implemented, I believe it will be as fair as it possibly can be. More importantly, the model will be as supportive and robust for Bitshares as possible.
We need to know if Graphene is community owned. If it is, everything built with it should be joint owned. If not, well if Bitshares has unrestricted access to all Graphene developments, then we just have competing networks to deal with. Although, BM has already stated that cryptonomex will not develop competing networks so I can only assume he's thought of other ways to use the toolkit to build profitable services. If that's the case, that should be fine.....the devs get to monetise their development efforts while we do everything we can to build network effect.
Protecting the Graphene toolkit from rampant replication whilst keeping it open-source is a very sensible idea. The freedom comes to the individual who uses the Bitshares network to secure life, liberty and property.