Honestly, it seems like the idealism of open source shouldn't have survived its contact with capitalism, but I suppose the contact wasn't painful enough the the exploitation continued for a long time.

Maybe we need a license that's even more onerous to corporations than the AGPL, like something with a revenue share clause.

Or maybe the problem is the naivete of software engineers. In aggregate, there was so much embrace of libertarianism that no groundwork was laid to protect ourselves from things like AI and offshoring.

Been pitching that with my FOSS colleagues and peers for years, now. A license for individual and educational use, but pay-to-play for anyone tangentially making revenue from its use. Then the conversation boils down to the business engineering of how much should something cost, with some arguing for flat yearly rates, and others arguing for cost-per-unit, while others still fret about "disrupting" the status quo immediately after acknowledging its untenability.

It's...frustrating, but those who do the work are the most qualified to explain what they need. For the rest of us, it's encouraging them to seek reasonable compensation for their work from those who exploit it for profit, and that doing so doesn't necessarily go against the spirit of open source.

> the idealism of open source shouldn't have survived its contact with capitalism

The US economy of the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s made it possible.

I don't mean to come across as far too cynical, but in what world has a software license ever stopped the greedy and powerful from pillaging the IP of other people smaller and weaker than them?

In my opinion, libertarianism in software is a hollow dream that leads people to make foolish decisions that can't be protected. This makes it easy for corporations to exploit and quash any barely audible opposition.

Almost as if by plan, the libertarian mindset has eroded and weakened open source protections, defanging and declawing it every step of the way.