FOSS is destroyed with overly permissive licenses that allow entities with a lot of capital to productize software as closed source while giving back the original author/maintainer exactly 0.

How does that scenario alter free and open source software?

The software is still open and free.

But in your scenario you're just super angry you didn't figure out to make money off your work.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest that you never, ever contribute to FOSS and instead just buckle down and focus on selling your blobs.

My experience is that FOSS is being destroyed by entitled consumers.

Note: I'm not saying you're an entitled consumer, but I interviewed many maintainers of successful Open Source projects. The number one issue for all of them was entitled consumers.

I take back my previous comment since I can't now edit it. I was wrong. I think the approach makes sense. There is nothing wrong with getting paid by commericial interests. Its the difficult side of FOSS where finding balance between the two worlds is kind of hard to achieve in a perfect way.

I appreciate that "edit". :)

And, yes, you are very correct that finding balance is very challenging. However, I feel that the OSMF suits the bill quite well, at least for projects of a shape and size that I'm familiar with.

Yea that is actually more a symptom of post-war generations, so isnt exclusive to OSS. Ask any employer how its going with their new young staff members.

but what I see causing far more problems in the OSS community is greedy patreon gatewallers who poach all they can from the devs, then put it behind a patreon wall and charge money for it. Them and corporate swooping in are a bigger problem than whining on a github issues board.

after further consideration, I actually think I am wrong in this case. It's really just looking for fair payment in exchange for work provided to those that are commercial interests or who can afford to pay it. Which is totally fair and my point doesnt apply here.