1. They're allowed to make $200,000 off of the community but other developers aren't?
2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.
2. That's not the problem. The problem is making developers sign a contract just to contribute to the project.
Fundraise for your own project and you can run it in any way you see fit.
Write the code yourself and you can license it in any way you see fit.
The Affero licensing prevents some commercial venture from using their code as a foundation, creating a hosted service, tacking on some proprietary candy that locks users in, and out-marketing them. I'm fine with them safeguarding against that.
1. They didn't "make" $200,000, they got $200,000 in donations, and yes, people should be allowed to accept donations. If you don't like the terms, don't donate. I'm sure the Diaspora guys would love it if someone put up another kickstarter page accepting donations towards contributing to the Diaspora code base.
The Linux kernel doesn't require copyright transfers. Most open source projects don't either (though many require a contributor license agreement).
The business of Diaspora is just as green as the code of Diaspora, and requiring copyright transfer is a very sensible way of anticipating the inevitable pivots.
When you can demonstrate to me how the existence of GPL-licensed web servers prevents the creation and sale of proprietary web servers, and additionally demonstrate to me that people will not pay other people to host stuff for them, I will accept that you "aren't allowed to" make money off of this.