>Now if anything happend to Shaun there is not a single owner of DNN and the project could go on without any legal >troubles.

I understand some of the reason why you decided to formalise it a bit more but there is really no change in relation to the above between the old company and the new - they were both legal company structures and both had/have shareholders - so in reality if the share holders decide to sell their shares then ownership changes - also and I could be wrong on this as there has been changes in both Canadian and USA laws in realtion to take overs - I think that the canadian laws being more UK based make it a bit harder for a take over then the USA laws do.

I think what seems to bother most is that a non profit structure was not used with the new company.

I do agree with you re if Shaun dies ( hopefully that will not happen till a ripe old age) but I don't think that this was the major concern about using a company structure - the fact that a company structure was and is being used means that ownership and thus direction can change at any time by change of ownership of the shares.

I can understand zigf's concerns and these are valid unless the new company is very open in what it does. - its very unlikely that the board of the new company would ever consider it but  open the shares to the community this would then give some security to those that have built their business on the framework.