G'day geni,
The foundation does not need legal bills. If we can dodge legal fights we should do so.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we should *always* dodge legal fights if that option is available to us. A better philosophy would be: pick your battles.
There are battles that we will win, battles we should win, and battles we won't win. There are fights we must have, fights we should have, and fights that aren't worth having. At the moment, as many participants here and on-wiki have pointed out, this is a battle we should win; however, it's not a fight we should have.
Ultimately, publishing the key may be worthwhile, or it may not. Either way, it's not something we need to do now. It's not something anti-IP zealots can help by spamming, or indeed by doing anything that doesn't involve not being a zealot for at least a few seconds.
This is a problem --- or rather, a type of problem --- that we have encountered before on Wikipedia, many times. I would venture to suggest the problem is not unique to us, either. We see it on AfD. We see it with BLP issues. We see it in arguments about fair use. We probably see it in places I haven't been known to lurk, but I wouldn't know, not having lurked there.
Wikipedia attracts people who believe in Freedom. That's a Good Thing. I'm bang alongside Freedom all the way, baby. But the minute anyone suggests to such people that we should be responsible with our use of that Freedom --- whether it's "we don't need to risk a lawsuit just yet" or even just "let's approach our editorial decisions by what's best for this article" --- they run into a wall. On that wall is written, in letter fifteen feet high, "Fuck you! We're the greatest encyclopaedia in the world, and nobody is going to tell *us* what to publish! Freedom, baby, yeah!"
Who remembers the [[autofellatio]] image? Now, on Wikipedia there are people who believe that we are a family encyclopaedia and who will actively seek to censor sexuality-related topics, and who certainly don't want their favourite reference source graphically displaying men sucking their own penises (penii?). There is also a somewhat larger group of people who believe we are Defenders of Freedom, and if we shock a few wowsers, so much the better, and who cares if it's editorially necessary. But here's a shock: *neither* group are correct. The only group who matter are those who say: does this improve the article, and is this in the interests of the encyclopaedia? That's a question neither group was interested in answering then, or in similar arguments (lolicon).
Similar camps, with similar splits, occur in all these issues: the freedom-lovers and the wowsers, and neither group can be fully trusted. We aren't going to knuckle down to the interests of pressure groups, but neither are we going to tempt lawsuits. We are going to do what's best for each individual article, and for the encyclopaedia as a whole. If your ideology gets in the way of that, well: fuck you, too[0].
Is your interest in Wikipedia because you want to see it curtailed, censored, emasculated? Is your interest in Wikipedia because you want to fight the censors and see our encyclopaedia as the best battleground available to you? If you aren't here because you genuinely want to help build the world's greatest reference work, then that's fine --- we tend to take contributions from anyone, nutcase or no. But you'll have to excuse us if we don't knuckle down to your ideology, and I don't care whether it's pro- or anti-Freedom. Grow the fuck up and let us get on with our work without your constant fighting.
[0] I don't mean you, geni. I'm on a tear here.