There's an extent to which this whole discussion feels 'close but no potato'. While we generally agree that open source software is good for business, consumer

There's an extent to which this whole discussion feels 'close but no potato'. While we generally agree that open source software is good for business, consumers, society and developers and as open source developers we enjoy developing and sharing open source code; we also have to make rent and buy food. The responses to that fall into one of two categories: + This is obviously unfair, the world sucks, but no one particularly wants more closed-source software/libraries/frameworks so quit your bitching and suck it up, after all if <team name here> can do it why can't you (neglecting that donation driven models don't scale for all the components of an open ecosystem)? + We should change our licenses so that people with money have to pay for it. No one was lied to here particularly, the license terms are there and they tell you you're surrendering rights to your work when you choose a permissive license. But equally modern development is almost impossible without open source components and businesses aren't willing to pay their way or do everything in house. Where do we go from here? Well, I think these licensing discussions are in general harmful to open source (ignoring free software here because, just because). We all benefit from knowledge being a commons and from being able to see, repurpose and audit source code. But if the system is rewarding nonsense (basically all modern software development, every social media app, every advertising platform, almost all enterprise software, etc, etc.) while the developers of the genuinely socially useful stuff go hungry then maybe the system isn't fit for purpose. I don't have concrete suggestions beyond telling people to think bigger than just which license to choose and to stop trying to harm the open source ecosystem to get paid. System change needs a coordinated effort from people working together, we have to build and articulate a demand for change that comes from the masses of developers, not solely a few people. Again this is all thoroughly hand wavey and sadly I don't have any answers but I'd be interested in building a socialist vision of software as a public good and knowledge as a commons that enriches everyone, rather than creating minefields for litigation with new licenses.