People are not using open source for the hippie philosophy. They are using it because it is free (as in beer), but even more importantly: they are using it because non-free licenses are a terrible pain in the ass.
Legal aspects are a headache, and the amount of effort to get someone in your company to pay even a tiny amount for some library or service is a serious hurdle.
I would not be surprised if adopting a non-free library would take a typical company ~40 man hours of work. At current rates, that translates to quite an expensive license.
Getting close source is even more work though - now we need someone to negotiate license terms (that is make sure our proposed use is compatible with the license we buy). We also make sure there is no risk of using their code (what if the closed source binary library has some AGPL3 code in it). I'm not even sure how to go through that process.
Someone like Microsoft or Google could take software like this, pay the original developer, and still see tons of ROI offering it as a canned cloud service. And to a certain degree they don’t care about the profitability of that 1 thing if it helps sell the rest of their system. Quite honestly, they won’t care about competition using it if it’s already common. People want X, they’re using it, you can offer it. You’re paying a handful of people for street cred, a guarantee it will continue to work well with your stuff, and input into direction.
Folks like RedisLabs, MongoDB, Hashicorp, etc. think they can do the same with a marketplace offering. But they’re reliant that the particular product is profitable on its own. They’re also reliant on the cloud customer being willing to establish another relationship with another vendor, even when they can automatically deploy and bill through their existing provider.
We’ve seen folks behind OSS projects hop from company to company over time and the project continues to thrive. I haven’t seen a company restrict a license and the project do so… at least that I can think of. I might be wrong.
No. I think part of the value of Redis to date was exactly that it was BSD licensed. When I started using it, I showed many other developers what they could do with it, and those devs took Redis to work, and built products and some bought services/products from Redis. Without the open source product, Redis the company would likely not exist as it does today. Times change, and the right strategy for Redis the company probably looks a lot different than when they started it on the back of Antirez's still awesome software.
Do you not see how incredibly entitled this is?
If everyone does this then there's no money to maintain the fork, and you're looking for slaves to run it. Or else everything FOSS just gets maintained by employees at massive tech companies that have other businesses which fund it.