Add notes (commented out) on forks and third party contributions

dosp-survey.ltx

@@ -229,6 +229,26 @@ A: When using dual licensing with GPL, companies must pay for a commercial licen
 
 This is echoed in statements by several BUSL adopters that they sought a way to make downstream commercial users who did not redistribute derived works pay for the use of their software (typically in cloud environments), or wanted to prevent downstream commercial users from directly competing with the initial developer's own service offerings.
 
+\subsection{Consequences/Impacts?}
+
+% Some people forked the last open source version of Terraform and are
+% actively maintaining it as OpenTofu. I don't know that people have done
+% this for other BUSL-relicensed projects.
+% yes for Vagrant -> Viagrunt, although OpenTofu got vastly more support
+% and activity
+
+% It's potentially much harder for projects under non-open-source terms to
+% accept outside contributions, both because people may be less motivated
+% to make them and because the licensing status is more confusing. However
+% Hashicorp for example has a CLA, with a bot that checks whether authors
+% of pull requests have signed it. Hashicorp does continue to receive some
+% outside contributions on BUSL-licensed projects.
+%
+% e.g. https://cla.hashicorp.com/hashicorp/terraform
+% TODO: Did they have this requirement before relicensing? Some open source
+%       projects do have comparable CLAs for outside contributions to
+%       become part of their official upstream code bases.
+
 \subsection{Other}
 
 Sentry has released a draft of its ``Functional Source License" (FSL),