If you build a chair, you have a single chair.

If you build some software, you can share that an infinite number of times.

That chair has value. Maybe you can sell it, but maybe you just wanted to make a really nice chair.

That software has value. Maybe you can sell it, but maybe you just wanted to make a really nice piece of software. But just because the software is infinitely copy-able doesn't make it worth infinite dollars.

That last point is really the only important one and it makes no difference, to me, as the developer. I just want to make cool software. It just so happens that software is infinitely copy-able and chairs are not. The production side is the same.

Well, sure, I’m not even really arguing that its a bad thing. Personally, any code I publish online, I put under the MIT license because I don’t really care if people use it commercially or not. Its also the same argument used to say “piracy” isn’t harmful.

I’m just pointing out that in open-source-as-a-hobby its very common that large corporations, who may or may not give back to the community themselves, derive profits off of hobbyist work while this is less common with other hobbies. Even if it doesn’t financially hurt the hobbyist, it can be demoralising (although others love it, so to each their own, I suppose — that’s why we have different licenses)

I don't think it's simultaneously fair to release code in an open source license that allows commercial use and then be demoralized by that commercial use. The problem there is clearly one's own.

Companies may use open source software but they don't directly or indirectly profit from it; they can only profit from the value they provide on top of it. Software that is free for everyone cannot be a distinguishing feature.

Contributing to open source software, even if used by for-profit entities, is increasing the total state-of-the-art for the entire industry. If you are demoralized by that then you probably want a job, not a hobby.

I don’t disagree, when I release under MIT, I’m basically saying “go ahead and do what you please under these simple terms”. I suppose this is why people release under GPLv3 or AGPL. I’m just trying to provide commentary on why I think people are bothered by commercial use without giving back. Ultimately, I think you’re right: if I release under a permissive license, I shouldn’t get upset if people use it.

I've seen a couple different camps of OSS. Some people do it to scratch their own itch. Like building a tool because it was fun to do or solved a problem the author had. This is the perfect case for OSS. People rarely care about reuse in this case.

The other case is a project desperately needed by the community and every corporation is making their own internal version of that code. No one really wants to commit the next 10 years of their life to it but someone eventually does sensing the need. The author gets many stars and forks but almost no money. Corporations then want to twist the library to their own specific needs while an individual or small team build a necessary tool but there's no business model. Then either a corporation adopts the repo to keep it going or the author tries to turn it into a business. Both of these outcomes rarely succeed for the wider needed but no one's really willing to pay for it.

These are super broad generalizations. The big problem seems to be when some software is really needed, someone steps in to build it and then no one pays them. Need != business model.