This is wrong.

As an adult living in a world with other adults, if I want to get paid for my work, then I'm going to setup that interaction ahead of time.

If I wanted to con people, then maybe I would put something of value out for anyone to take. Then once people take it, I would pressure them for something of value in return.

If I give out a gift and it makes someone want to give me a gift in return, then that's nice. But they aren't required to give me a gift. That's the whole point of giving a gift in the first place. It doesn't setup a compulsory need to reciprocate.

The point is, they offered a library with the MIT license, expecting money for it doesn't make sense.

When I release OSS code, I expect everyone to be able to use it, and I do it on my own schedule, based on my own interests. It's purely self-motivated.

Were I to write code for your company, I bet you wouldn't let me release the code to anyone else (I can see it in your little eyes) and you'd definitely demand to control what I write and how quickly. It's externally motivated. The external motivation I choose is money.

There's the "false equivalence" advocate who shows up with the same trite comment every time open source is discussed. Knew you'd be here eventually.

tsk tsk, it's called "paying in visibility" or "career-building opportunity".

It's a traditional economic model in the arts. Most musicians and photographers put shelter over their heads and fill their bellies with nothing but "exposure".

yeah, and we all know how well that has worked for them