It's not true (and also not funny):

* Many of the people maintaining FOSS are paid to do so; and if we counted 'significance' of maintained FOSS, I would not be surprised if most FOSS of critical significance is maintained for-pay (although I'm not sure).

* Publishing software without a restrictive license is not 'generous', it's the trivial and obvious thing to do. It is the restriction of copying and of source access that is convoluted, anti-social, and if you will, "insane".

* Similarly, FOSS is not a "miracle" of human cooperation, and it what you get when it is difficult to sabotage human cooperation. The situation with physical objects - machines, consumables - is more of a nightmare than the FOSS situation is a miracle. (IIRC, an economist named Veblen wrote about the sabotaging role of pecuniary interests on collaborative industrial processes, about a century ago; but I'm not sure about the details.)

* Many people read licenses, and for the short, paragraph-long licenses, I would even say that most developers read them.

* It is not insane to use FOSS from a "fiduciary standpoint".

> * Many people read licenses, and for the short, paragraph-long licenses, I would even say that most developers read them.

Well, it's one thing to read licenses as a human and another to read them as a lawyer.

That's why it's useful to pick one of the standard licenses that lawyers have already combed over, even if it's a long one like the GPL.