I think it is exactly as intended. As a developer of an open source project, you are not required to give your source code and _any other derivative of that co

I think it is exactly as intended. As a developer of an open source project, you are not required to give your source code and _any other derivative of that code_ to _all users_. You are only required to give _each_ user the source code for what has been distributed to them. Any user is free to turn around and _redistribute_ or modify anything that has already been distributed to them. The user is not required to distribute modified derivative source back to the original developer, unless the user has distributed a running copy of the derivative. The license says nothing about not being able to _charge_ users for the original executable software. It says nothing about guaranteeing delivery of executable derivatives made by the original author in perpetuity. In this way, the incentives are aligned to: 1. Produce useful running software that is of the same scale of usefulness and complexity of things such as Chrome and Windows, because these complex software packages have enormous value and cost time and money to make and should be profitable for the maker. 2. Also produce useful running software that the user is allowed to fix or build new, useful derivatives upon through receiving the source. For which they can then charge. Doing so, the original author may decide to not deliver any further derivative executables to the user, meaning that the user is no longer entitled to source code. The user now bears the maintenance burden for their entire product -- which, when distributed, must come with a copy of the source. I think this allows for users to generate their own commercial value streams from the originator while protecting the originator's ability to make money, and I think it is a good thing. Open source work need not be volunteer work. You want updates, you comply with the terms of the license. You want to make a derivative work for your own profit and redistribute it, fine, but you'll have to renegotiate the price for the originator's updates to get the updates and the corresponding source updates. Sounds like an excellent way for open-source devs to actually get paid for maintenance work, IMHO. It need not be free as in beer to provide value, and freedom, to users.