Cryptonomex is giving BitShares the freedom to use everything we have produced without any kind of restriction except that it must remain a SINGLE blockchain.
Being restricted to being a single blockchain is tantamount to a death toll. Demultiplexing of chain data is the only way forward once we hit bandwidth and storage blottlenecks, which is coming very fast. If that wasn't the case you wouldn't have had to optimize the channel capacity in graphene. Now, there are only two ways of demultiplexing:
1) forking the network => forbidden by the license
2) using multiple ledgers => forbidden by the license
A single ledger is already border line suitable for a distributed asset exchange, and we may struggle with that only when the volumes pick up. So preventing BitShares from scaling beyond a single ledger effectively prevents us from exploring other venues such as smart contracts, media distribution, distributed storage, IoT (something your clients must be very interested in),
So we gain a technical optimization that isn't critical and that we could achieve ourselves by hiring developers, and in exchange we are locked in a cage that effectively prevents us from scaling beyond our current scope. Doesn't sound like a good deal at all.
We are not like Ripple because we do not want to "control" BitShares going forward.
You are conflating the technology and the network.
Ripple (the technology) is free software and is provided and maintained by Ripple Labs without any strings attached. Ripple (the network) is currently controlled by Ripple Labs in exchange of which Ripple Labs is commited to growing its value and market regardless of whether the market conditions allow them to derive revenue from the network. Ripple Labs also commited to relinquish control once the technology is mature enough and allow other entitites to become validators. The way things are set, there are no conflict of interests and Ripple's objectives, the Ripple community objectives and Ripple Labs objectives are perfectly aligned.
BitShares 2.0 (the technology) on the other hand is architectured around a framework that isn't free software and licensed to BitShares (the network and community) with so many strings attached that Cryptonomex pretty much ends up controlling the network by controlling it's life support system. But unlike Ripple Cryptonomex doesn't commit to grow the network, contribute to its technological evolution or increase its market share. On the other hand it still stands to benefit from the network which it case use as an trade show exhibit, lab, live test net, and source of funding. There is so much potential for conflicts of interests that the mind boggles.
I think the entire community would be far more upset if the developers simply announced a new chain with new branding and a 20% share drop.
This has been a possibility all along and we are ready for that. At least this is playing within the rules. Now as the spearhead of the project who doubles as the one who has been raising the funds initially to launch BitShares, you know that you are held to a higher standard of accountability and that your reputation would take a huge hit if people start feeling betrayed so I guess doing that wouldn't be in your best interest.
Now, there is a third possibility where you could fork BitShares under your own brand, but sharedrop more than the minimum 20% (ideally 100% but the community may be fine with less TBC) as a recognition that Graphene and Cryptonomex wouldn't have been possible without the community funding all these years of research at I3. This solution allows BitShares and the new network to compete sainly on their own merits. And since we are all onboard of both, we will be fine no matter what.
edit: replaced "open source" by "free software"