> promoting open source movement manipulating developers into giving up their hard work for free
Make up your mind, were they exploiting open source by using it or were they getting more people to contribute to open source? You know the point of contributing to open source is it make it open source, right?
Do you exploit open source by using Linux instead of paying for Windows? Do you exploit open source by celebrating open source developers?
> were they exploiting open source by using it
Yes, they were profiting from labour they didn't pay for
> or were they getting more people to contribute to open source
Yes they promote open source so they can get more work done for free
> You know the point of contributing to open source is it make it open source, right?
That's the idea, but reality is that this is a loophole where big corporations save on R&D and get work done without having to pay salaries and taxes. In many countries you cannot hire someone without paying them even if they agree to work for free and the same should apply to software.
> Do you exploit open source by using Linux instead of paying for Windows?
The problem is that it is difficult to reward all the people who contributed to Linux and that needs to change.
> Do you exploit open source by celebrating open source developers?
That makes little sense. If you embrace open source you are actually helping big companies getting free labour.
In those countries, am I permitted to shovel my neighbor’s sidewalk or mow their lawn? Can I help a friend paint a room or change a tire? Am I permitted to write a poem and share it for free? Can I publish scientific findings that I might have created?
> If you embrace open source you are actually helping big companies getting free labour.
I see it as “Yes, and:” We are helping all humans avoid the tedium and drudgery of solving now-pointless problems because they have already been solved, avoid introducing novel security bugs, and overall to help us collectively stand on the shoulders of giants rather than on the toes.
That does help large companies avoid creating a bunch of tedious, pointless, repetitive work which humans would have to forfeit large chunks of their lives solving. That sounds like a feature rather than a bug to me.
It also helps small companies afford to offer tech-based solutions and to better utilize the constrained pool of “people who are good at programming”.
I think you’re crossing legal and moral arguments. I might decide to shovel my fixed-income pensioner neighbor’s sidewalk for free while deciding to not shovel Larry Ellison’s sidewalk on the other side of my property even if he asked nicely (which I doubt he would).
That’s a moral/ethical choice on my part, but the law everywhere probably allows that transaction.
If you don’t want to contribute your time, skills, and attention to open-source, I don’t see anyone suggesting that you be forced to do so. You are the one claiming that there’s something that ought to be illegal about it, with which I disagree.
I wouldn't hold my breath for a "big payout" -- a company will invest in what they find is necessary. Maybe it's a gold sponsor, maybe a junior engineer hire or more. The market is efficient in my view and everyone involved benefits. The disconnect I see is the delusion that open source contributor(s) are owed something because someone else found the software useful. They seem to so quickly forget that they picked the liscense and that liscense is being used as designed.
Your narrative is not productive. Instead, maybe advocate for cultural change in what it means to adopt open source technology, eliminate barriers for monetary or other forms of support. It's unlikely the intent of adoters is to be laughing all the way to the bank as you're claiming.
If you don't want companies to use your work without paying, then don't open source it under free licenses. Simple, simple solution. You can't make something freely available and then complain when people use it. You don't get to choose both sides of the argument.
No, it's a power grab, because full time developers plowing through the code base and working on minor issues crowd out the actual IP creators and make them leave.
Expect a dull, boring corporate controlled maintenance age where one or two people do mundane work and directors of various foundations and groups take the credit.
That would be an ideal scenario to be honest. If company wants to use the work, they should pay for it and for all time that lead to it or developers should be required by law to change licenses so that companies would have to pay either a subscription or a fixed fee for the software version.
That divide between boring development and rock star seeding indeed exists and typically people working on IP have their own companies and contract out their work. They create a PoC and then company employees make it into a product. That used to work well in the UK, but law has changed to be more akin to the US rules where you can't provide IT services as a small company (typically one man) and you have to be an employee.