People pay me for custom advice and integration of otherwise generic publicly available work. That public work also is what gives me the credibility to get gigs I otherwise never could. Others can go make money offering consulting based on my work if they want. I hope they do! There is no shortage of companies in need of consultants to unblock them in niche areas.
It is kind of the "paid support" model, and it works well for a lot of open source projects whose creators actively market themselves as the defacto subject matter experts offering support.
Likewise when I have worked for big companies and am having trouble or need a feature from an open source project I use my elective budget to pay project authors to implement what I need. Bailed me out many times in ways I would have never seen from a big tech firm like Apple.
Let's be honest though. The people that love the Apple brand enough to use Safari in spite of all the shortcomings don't use it because WebKit is open source or not. They use it because Apple supports it and they trust the brand.
Apple could open source everything and still be a top player for the foreseeable future.
They just want to be -the- top player making a little bit -more- money by monopolizing control of a major software platform even if it means developers have a shitter experience being stuck with decade old software they can't easily update in a safe way.
I mean like I kind of understand the point that you are trying to put, but Apple is not trying to make software for industrial applications, they are making software for end users and AWS literally has nothing to do with that.
Apple has never stopped the DIY crowd. Their core market is the people that want the support and the branded aluminum.
When such licenses are to another free software license (like AGPLv3), you won't here complaints from most F/OSS people on the basis of the license being untrue to F/OSS.
You will hear complaints from customers who now have to change what they're doing (pony up for a different license or switch to a fork). That's not an attitude problem, just a reality of having your toolchain disrupted.
Or because, you know, they make money selling that OS. And they understandably have no desire to make the entire thing GPLv3. And they also have countless contractual obligations to other vendors whose closed-source code is also bundled in OSX.
I find this attitude kind of troubling around here when every other day there's some "open source" project that has had to change licensing because insert cloud provider is stealing their lunch making it impossible for them to make a living. It turns out that someone has to pay the bills, and giving all of your software away isn't a great way to do that. Outside of Redhat, barely anyone has figured out how to make a business out of giving away software, and I'd argue the sale to IBM shows that even Redhat saw the gorilla that was AWS standing in the corner and decided it was time to throw in the towel.