Re 1: Yes, that true. I know what you mean, yet, that do it because they may. The licence was made like this. And I believe that anybody should be able to make money on OSS. Interestingly (but understandably) this is (currently?) a problem only for DBs; for example, cloud providers depend on Linux, Node.js, and other OSS without contributing back.
Re 2: IMHO, in an engineering context, ‘open source’ has always meant more than just ‘source available’. We can discuss the difference between Free Software on Open Source Software, sure, but in general talk, these two are used interchangeably and they imply unlimited use by anybody including commercial use.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
Hey Sebastian, thanks for your thoughts.
Re 1: Yes, that true. I know what you mean, yet, that do it because they may. The licence was made like this. And I believe that anybody should be able to make money on OSS. Interestingly (but understandably) this is (currently?) a problem only for DBs; for example, cloud providers depend on Linux, Node.js, and other OSS without contributing back.
Re 2: IMHO, in an engineering context, ‘open source’ has always meant more than just ‘source available’. We can discuss the difference between Free Software on Open Source Software, sure, but in general talk, these two are used interchangeably and they imply unlimited use by anybody including commercial use.