> a company shared their work with the public for however long, then decided to leave what was shared up

More like a company took advantage of a community that expected their freely offered labor to not be commercialized at any point in time without making available said works in a fully free vector as well, as that's an implicit expectation behind "open source".

> … took advantage of a community…

It would be helpful for everyone if that community would pause before contributing to code bases with licenses which allow for that. MIT, BSD, Apache, …

It would be helpful for them because they’ll know what they’re getting into. For us because we won’t have to see this tragedy unfold time and time again. And for all open source users because more efforts will be directed towards programs with licenses that protect end users. GPL, AGPL, …

It will be a little worse for companies seeking free labor. A price I’m willing to pay.

It looks like it's Apache licensed, so this was the expected and intended outcome for contributors. If they wanted their work to remain free and not become proprietary, they should have only contributed under perma-free licenses like GPL.

The GPL protects against this.

Donating software to the world is not an expectation that nobody uses that software to make money or build proprietary products on top of it.

Not all f/oss contributors are anticapitalist zealots like the FSF, as evidenced by the huge popularity of permissive licenses such as MIT.

There’s nothing implicit about it. The licenses are explicit legal documents.

Naive fools…

Companies stand to turn a profit. OSS is here to help enable that or push the goal posts. It’s not a charity unless the org feels charitable. Sure, non-profits exist but they were never one of those.