Much of the internet makes fun of "choosing beggar" "influencers" who want to pay people with "exposure" instead of money. Permissive licenses are the reverse: they're asking others to pay you only in "exposure" instead of money. If expect to gain any return (other than some CV padding and personal satisfaction) due to contributing to permissively licensed projects you're a sucker. Permissively licensed software is charity work. It's good, useful work in many cases, but it's not going to make you money.

Give money and time to causes you support. Go contribute to the BSDs. Volunteer at your local animal shelter. But don't think that you're going to get rich from it. You'll save some puppies and help some people (and maybe some megacorps) but that's all you can expect.

I thought the scare quotes around "open source" in my first statement were enough to convey that. But point taken, I'll adjust my messaging in the future.

I understood it that way since Stallman has criticized the term "open source" and distanced it from "free software": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

The tern Open Source was created to combat the GPL's perceived corporate unfriendliness.

If your company lets you sign the FSF legal papers. Most will not, and in the end you will not be able to contribute to GNU projects. It also needs weeks to clear the FSF paper work. About 1% of my users did it successfully.