If your business can't succeed using an open source license you made poor business choices. Own it, don't blame the license or the open source community.
If I have to pay developers, operate a business, allocate time and money to create value and take the risk that comes with it, and you come and take my work unchanged, strip all atribution and mereley resell it, then I can't succeed by definition. The most talented businessman on earth cannot.
If that's what you think open source is, it'll vanish. No commercial system can exist like that and it should not because it effectively means distributing resources from people who do everything to people who do nothing.
> and you come and take my work unchanged, strip all atribution and mereley resell it, then
If they strip all attribution, then you can just take them to court for violating the license; other than public domain and WTFPL, even the most permissive licenses (BSD/MIT/Apache) still require attribution.
> If that's what you think open source is, it'll vanish.
Free software has been fine without any businessmen or companies involved, we don't need your or any company's approval. It seems like the only thing that will vanish from the open source sphere are companies with flawed business plans.
If you're not able to come up with a business plan that involves open sourcing your software, that's fine!
Building a business off the open source model and community good-will before realising it doesn't work is either incompetence or dishonesty.
> If that's what you think open source is, it'll vanish. No commercial system can exist like that and it should not because it effectively means distributing resources from people who do everything to people who do nothing.
This is a weirdly hyper-capitalist take. You're saying that the successful businesses built off open source "should not" exist?
