If an artist said “I’m going to quit art if the world doesn’t pay me”, surely most people would just say, “good luck with that.”
If someone’s art piece contained a bug that broke a company’s industrial build pipeline, and all funding for improving the art piece was gone the next 15 months, I’m sure that company would consider donating.
There isn’t a principal difference between art and software here. It is the nature of companies that rely on open source that is not well understood here, causing criticism and questions.
This is a friendly reminder that anyone interested in a 3.1 release in the foreseeable future should cough up. :-)
I really don’t see the complaining.
Out of curiosity. You know, apples and oranges.
That alone does not entitle anyone to payment. All you're entitled to - as per license - is to have the license reproduced in full on some "About > Licenses" page.
Anything else is underpants-gnome level of magical thinking:
1. Author FL/OSS package
2. Package get wildly popular
3. ???
4. Profits