So you aren't wrong that google is built on the shoulders of giants, but I will point out that every single company today running their SaaS offering on top of linux/BSD is doing the exact same thing.
The only reason Linux is as mainstream as it is today, is exactly because of this freedom to leverage the code. You even point out that the cause for Golang's success is for precisely the same reason. Overall opensource isn't about making money, it has never been about making money. Its been about making an impact, and bettering the world around us all by giving a piece of technology to be freely used by everyone. There are a variety of opensource licenses that can/will protect your code from any/all closed source uses, for example AGPL explicitly states if your application so much as interacts with the code over a TCP connection or furthermore a single UDP packet it must be opensource as well. However you will rarely see libraries/applications using this license. Why you might ask? The answer is simple, it reduces the impact that code can have.
Really at the end of the day, it comes down to a choice of the developer(s), do you want to make money? i.e. go the Microsoft/Apple route? or do you want to make an impact? i.e. go the Linux/BSD route?
Let me ask one final question, which of the above operating systems do you think are more widely used, or have changed the world in a more dramatic manner?
I could care less about other companies that have existed for 5 minutes in the SaaS space in my comment that nobody has ever derived more value and given that, contributed less back.
Google is built on an end run around the spirit and intent of the GPL. "Don't distribute software, distribute thin client access to it! No GPL! Hurrah! Money!"
Decide for yourself what you think of that but it happened. Without it, no google.
But hey, list anyone you think derived more value and contributed less back. It's a reasonable thing to do. Doesn't affect criticism of google.
The only reason Linux is as mainstream as it is today, is exactly because of this freedom to leverage the code. You even point out that the cause for Golang's success is for precisely the same reason. Overall opensource isn't about making money, it has never been about making money. Its been about making an impact, and bettering the world around us all by giving a piece of technology to be freely used by everyone. There are a variety of opensource licenses that can/will protect your code from any/all closed source uses, for example AGPL explicitly states if your application so much as interacts with the code over a TCP connection or furthermore a single UDP packet it must be opensource as well. However you will rarely see libraries/applications using this license. Why you might ask? The answer is simple, it reduces the impact that code can have.
Really at the end of the day, it comes down to a choice of the developer(s), do you want to make money? i.e. go the Microsoft/Apple route? or do you want to make an impact? i.e. go the Linux/BSD route?
Let me ask one final question, which of the above operating systems do you think are more widely used, or have changed the world in a more dramatic manner?