I'd just legalese some authoritive-sounding answers so they can check thier boxes and move on to the next case. e.g. 1) No. Users cannot conduct microtransactions using the submitted application. 2) No, The submitted application checks to see if a user has been muted and will not serve their content to other users that have muted them. 3) N/A It's just a clerk checking boxes. They don't need to know about the open source ethos and implications. Also, there's no benefit in discussing potential feature upgrades (address those later, when theyre submitted, if necessary). Any additional elaboration will just slow things down and raise more questions. In other words, in my opinion, since you were unlucky and were assigned a strict reviewer, it's better to just get the camels nose into the tent and hope for a more lenient reviewer when you submit future versions with feature upgrades. I've leaned in IP law that the examiners always have to contest something in the application (even if it's perfect). They're just justifying their existence. All they personally want is to log their objections, a reasonable response, approve, and then move on.