Open Source Licensing

Because that's how open source works. If you don't want for profit companies using code for free, then offer it under a license that states that.

I'm not sure if the dev feels entitled for _compensation_ per se, but G and other companies don't contribute back to the project in any form. Not $ and not in code. Now that is not a very good thing... though technically that's exactly what you get with permissive O/S licenses. It looks like the dev realized that and changed the license.It also doesn't look like he trusts this companies much, because otherwise he could've just slapped the Commons Clause on

I feel you that the current situation is not good, but nobody is forcing developers to share their projects as open-source or to use a license that is company-friendly. If the maintainer(s) do not want companies to profit from the OSS without giving back they could easily use a copyleft License (e.g., GPL) or switch to a closed-source approach.And btw. it's not super easy for companies to contribute on a voluntary basis - their investors or stakeholders would not allow/like it. What

Consider Open Sourcing it as AGPL. In case some company ever does decide to customize it heavily and monetize, they'll be forced to commit upstream or purchase a different license from you.

Don't use a license you don't want people to exercise. In fact I don't quite understand why you would open source the project at all if you are going to actively discourage people from using the code in ways that are permitted by common open source licenses.If you don't want anyone else to make money from the project perhaps designing your application in clear parts and releasing them as open source libraries would have made more sense. Releasing the whole thing as open so

Yes, why not? If it's not something prohibited by the license, it is permitted.Also, if open source companies wouldn't do it, some open source projects would never reach any kind of maturity if the company creating such project faces the competition who just live off the work of the original team who don't contribute back to the project.

Maybe, but I don't think so. In general we plan to have every contributor sign a CLA as we want to make sure we can keep control over the development of the project, in case we will have to change its license later.Some companies don't want to contribute back to open-source software and that's fine, if they pay a license fee instead we can use that money to pay ourselves and build new features for the open-source version, so everyone benefits. I'd even say that maybe open-

Choose your license well. If you are using a permissive licence (MIT, Apache, BSD, etc...) you are begging for it. If that's what you want (and it may be what you want), go for it, but don't expect it to pay the bills.If you are using a copyleft license, especially AGPL, you may not get paid either, but you may get valuable contributions in return. It is also a good way to avoid having big companies profit from your work, if that's what you want.If you want to make money but

How is building on top of an open source product milking it? Isn't this increasing git's exposure? If they didn't want that, they should've used a more restrictive license.

Those aren't Open Source licenses, so that's the same as the suggestion in the parent comment to make the software proprietary and charge for licenses.