I just read the article. Burnout sucks, but, maybe I'm missing the point of open source. To me, it's not about 'creating value'; rather, developing open-source

I just read the article. Burnout sucks, but, maybe I'm missing the point of open source. To me, it's not about 'creating value'; rather, developing open-source software is part of an ideology that believes humanity's knowledge should be available for examination; that all the moving parts are laid bare to see. Open source is more about 'showing' how it's done -- the proof is in the code -- than, y'know, doing it in the first place, which is a rather nice side-effect. And therefore, I don't subscribe to the notion that if companies take open-source software and don't contribute back, they're exploiting the developer(s). It'd be nice of them if they donated, but by not doing so, they're not being evil. They are instead building on a common bank of shared knowledge, some of which is executable code, just like every single one of us can.