you don’t get paid

Actually, it is about commercial value obtained from using GPL’d S/W (I don’t know why any volunteer would have wanted to donate S/W to corporates!). But some of the GPL’y projects atleast had self-interested funding of developers (by, e.g. Redhat). OSS’y S/W has had much less of that.

If you look at steps like the OIN, they tried to share IP amongst corporates rather than costs, so corporates do play along when they have to. Nothing like that happened for GPL’y or OSS’y S/W. LLM training is probably a licensing violation, and also the biggest possible leeching.

Sure, a “normie” using GPL’d S/W is on point, because volunteers donated their skills for that purpose. That part of the commons worked.

That is the implication if open licenses can’t deter corporate leeching while positioning for collaboration with volunteers. Unless there is an ideal license unknown to most projects that avoids the tragedy of the commons.

👍 the website makes a lot of the right noises.

You are saying that the commons is unviable. I think I am saying that that is because of corporate leeches.

The tragedy of the commons seems reasonable to you.

If a corporate saves $$$ by using GCC, they should give atleast $$ back (to GNU/FSF, and to SFC etc. for the other software they use), shouldn’t they? And they don’t. That is taking advantage in a negative sense.

Seriously? Lots of corporate software runs on Linux (or BSD). What are they, or the runtimes of their language platform, compiled using?

Just to add an analysis of UN numbers on this.