I believe Open Source software sold developers the dream of "to be hired for what they have developed" and cash-in the effort they have spent as a future, stable employment.

Many die on the hill of "developing something required for free with permissive licenses for recognition which will help with their future endeavors", which is the same with other creative lines of work. As a result they are milked of their knowledge and forced to bear the burden of leading the project and handling the community while companies just use what's developed while quietly but strongly nudging the project's direction for their benefit.

If the developer gets rogue, the thing is forked and sometimes closed down with no downside to the company, but the community and the developer(s) are hung to dry, conveniently signaling other developers about what they might face if they disobey their overlords with iron fists in velvet gloves as a secondary effect.

▲

trumpdong 2 hours ago | parent [-]

I think you can get recognition just as well with share-alike licenses. Plus you leave the opportunity open to ask for money for a different license grant.

▲

bayindirh 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I believe strongly so, however companies doesn't like this, hence the current state we're in. Also it's part of the "advertising" done by the companies.

Last but not the least, many people are very ill-informed about GPL and how it works. I experience this when we discuss this with peers.

This is why I only use copyleft (or non-commercial/share-alike) licenses on what I build/produce/put out.

▲

limagnolia 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If you share your code with me under a copy left license, I will share my contributions under the same copy left license... you will not then be free to ask for money for things built on top of or with my contributions. You may be okay with that, but it is a decision you have to make.

	▲	kruffalon 36 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A common misunderstanding with the GPL and other copy left licences is that they care about money and monetary transactions. They mostly do not. They only demand that you offer the source code to anyone that asks for it if you also distribute any kind of executable (you may even charge to cover the costs of the distribution). The AGPL expands this to SaaS's too to close that loophole.