Comment by ndsipa_pomu
2 years ago
I agree that commercialising open source software can be exploitative and obviously, that why the GPL was thought necessary to try to stop that kind of behaviour (or at least ensure that the resultant code was also open source).
But with non-commercial usage, I don't see it as exploiting the author as they wanted to write it for their own reasons and had no interest in commercialising it or believed it to be non-viable. If someone releases under MIT/BSD, then they're pretty much saying "here's the code, do whatever you want with it", so I don't see a problem with companies using it.
There isn't a problem with companies using software licensed under the MIT. There's a problem with the developer who made it: they're devaluing software as a whole. If companies get into the habit of receiving software for free, without any limitations, they value software as a whole less.
In contrast, a good, upstanding developer publishing under the GPL/LGPL/AGPL doesn't create the same negative externality: they establish that the cost of using open source software is contributing to open source software. Which should be the cost of open source software. Want functionality added to a project? Add it yourself, or hire somebody to add it, and then share the result openly. The original person who wrote the code is a pretty compelling candidate for that contract, but far from the only person available.