In the past it kinda worked out, because the code of OSS acted as the portfolio of the developers, who would get hired by big corps. (Today with LLMs you have no way of knowing who was the original author)

We definitely do not pay enough for the utility we get from OSS. But on the other hand do we want do copyright in code? Also when you pay for something you can hold liable the vendor if things go south (security holes etc). Do we want the devs of OSS to be in such position?

In a way it’s good that the equation is so lopsided. A massive part is that software can be replicated infinitely for free. This is why the scale of the value created is so giant.

I definitely do think it’s crazy that someone whose software gets dozens of millions of downloads A DAY can end up making less than someone building a mediocre SaaS app and getting acqui-hired 2 years later.

For the record, I think the VC - Startup ecosystem is incredibly valuable. But it IS crazy how essential software can go essentially unrewarded.

Wouldn't one be able to tell from basic research if a project is legit or not. E.g. looking how the developer handles support? If no HM does take OSS work into account, one other reason for publishing my code goes away. Might as well post it as freeware if I want to share it.