First of all, pick a lane. If the entire point is to deliver value to others, then you can’t portray open source devs as the victims of others’ derived value.

But zeroth of all, delivering value to others is virtually never the entire point. There’s a gamut of reasons why people produce open source software, and as well as a wide range of financial compensation that developers get for their labor, from bupkis to high six-figures.

Apache wasn’t written simply out of the goodness of people’s hearts. It was written by the first internet companies so they could make insane amounts of money, and some of those developers won the internet lottery from their stock options and are rich as hell now. https://www.internethistorypodcast.com/2014/10/the-webs-first-banner-ads/

[–] hoshikarakitaridia@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

There's licenses that restrict monetary use. Not saying that's the best thing to do, but that certainly would mean you only provide it to people who don't make money from it, which might still be a lot of people.

[–] DrJenkem@lemmy.blugatch.tube 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

You can do that with GPL. It prevents massive corporations from essentially leaving off your hard work but can still be free value to everyone else.

[–] toastal@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

No it doesn’t. You can resale GPL & you can even ask money just to get access to the source code & still comply with the license. You can host it without sharing anything (AGPL), & apparently you can train a LLM model on it which can then regurgitate the code which also apparently seems like it will be legal.