The idea is to displace the journal system and advance open science and academic publishing. If it accomplishes that goal, mission accomplished. I'll be a little sad if I didn't get to participate, but the whole world of software development awaits and there are other neat projects to work on. If they crib our approach, but execute poorly and don't succeed in opening publishing, that's not mission accomplished, but there's no reason we can't move forward and execute better in that scenario. If they crib the approach and show why it doesn't work, that's also mission accomplished. It shows that this isn't the right solution to the problem.
Or maybe we succeed - it remains to be seen. Any of those outcomes - cribbed and failed, cribbed and succeeded, or we fail/succeed in a way that shows whether the concept works clearly - we would consider mission accomplished.
The bigger threat to this model is probably places like arXiv/SSRN adding similar functionality, but since this seems to be a non-profit project, it would probably mean mission accomplished.