(And I object to the concept that hosting FOSS as a service is "freeloading". FOSS has always and only ever asked for giving back code, not money. Freeloading would be refusing to give back code, and companies regularly do fail on that front as well.)
> If Free Software can't feed its developers, they will look for food elsewhere.
FOSS can feed developers quite well. Some developers are deciding they'd prefer to sell proprietary software because they resent other companies benefiting from their work, and they're welcome to do that. What's not welcome is trying to claim the popularity benefits of FOSS without actually being FOSS; it is a good thing on balance that such efforts have met with chilly receptions.
There are many, many conversations going on about additional ways to fund FOSS development. The ones that have a hope of succeeding aren't the ones that start by abandoning FOSS.
Free software isn't about giving back code. It's about giving forward code. It's about being allowed to share code with others - if you want to.
Freedom 2 at https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others".
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject - "Computer users should be free to modify programs to fit their needs, and free to share software, because helping other people is the basis of society."
> Freeloading would be refusing to give back code
This is counter to the freedoms of free software. Again from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
] You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
Which is one of the reasons of disillusionment from them. On one hand, FOSS licenses only benefits developers who can fix the software to their liking – a non-developer user would likely just pay for it to make sure that they can get reliable, professional support. On the other hand, it assumes that the labour of developers is worthless (or at the very least, it's value is completely dissociated from its real-world impact).
> There are many, many conversations going on about additional ways to fund FOSS development.
Are any of them non-reliant on either the altruism of their users (donations, patronage, etc.), or selling value-added services that can easily be undercut by a party with deeper pockets (e.g., MongoDB vs AWS)?
It benefits everyone because if the original developers stop supporting it anyone can pay some one else to support it.
It benefits all because we can decide to fork, or pay some one else to fork, the software and customize it to our needs.
[1]: https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1469349956880408583
There are also various log4j forks.
And that is just the one project you mentioned, the world of Open Source software is very vast, with many contributors, forks, and financial sponsors.
Its no different than Google using the Java APIs in Android. The Supreme Court of the USA clearly ruled in Google's favor. It did not matter that the APIs were closed source software.
Further, I would disagree with using the term "freeloading" for some one who uses an Open Source program under the terms of the license in which it is offered. (Again, not even the case for AWS as pertaining to MongoDB).
Yes, they did, when MongoDB was licensed under AGPL. After MongoDB relicensed under SSPL, they release the API-compatible DocumentDB which is proprietary itself.