These articles never clearly state what problem they want to solve. Some candidates that seem obliquely implied: - That you personally don't feel motivated to

These articles never clearly state what problem they want to solve. Some candidates that seem obliquely implied: - That you personally don't feel motivated to make OSS because of the way it's structured. Of course no one can fault you for that; that's the default position. Same for me and, say, juggling. But should the ecosystem really reorient itself around encouraging you--and specifically you--to participate? - That there was some implicit social contract that has been recently violated by the commercial use of permissively licensed stuff. But there was no such social contract, the OSS dynamics haven't changed recently, and the whole point of the MIT and Apache licenses is to allow this. - That the ecosystem doesn't have a structure that lends itself to the flourishing of OSS. This one is just clearly untrue; look around. I hear all this vague grousing about the state of a system that seems to be working really well and for which participation is entirely voluntary. What problem do we want to solve again? (There was also something in this article about ads in paid products, which I also find obnoxious, but that seems like a non sequitur? Did I miss something there?)