alt Hacker News> The majority of open source devs aren't giving away the source without a license.
100% of open source devs aren’t giving away the source without a license, since a licence—the grant of permissions for what is otherwise exclusive to author under the law—is what makes something open source.
> That license is how they specify what they want in return.
No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.
> No, the license is how they legally give away permission to use material that is legally subjejct to their exclusive rights by virtue of creation. The license may be a contract license that, as you suggest, involves mutual exchange of value, but for many (especially permissive) open source licenses it is a gratuitous bounded grant of permission which has limits but does not involve giving something of value back to the creator.
Wrong. What they want in return is either credit or derivatives of the software. It's disingenuous to suggest that all these authors specifying, in a legal document, the exact mechanism by which to pay them back don't know what they are asking.
If you're not happy with that trade, then don't make it.