perhaps unpopular opinion (though perhaps not #onhere):
contributing to "open core" projects amounts to hidden labour.
Volunteering time and resources to contribute to the likes of Chef, Docker, Vagrant and surrendering your copyright to them is squandering your efforts.
These are massively funded companies which pay a team of developers to do that work. Why give away effort to do that work for them. Of course, they give the talk of we-are-a-community and try to lure volunteers to improve their product for free and on their time.
Fork their stuff. Rename and distribute. Until they compensate external contributions at the same rate as their internal devs, I see no reason to spend any brain cycle on that bug report or that potential feature.
@codeforchaos it's not even "hidden". it's just regular labour
this is why one picks the most strict license that is practical. I'm partial to the AGPL
I've seen some post open source people advocate a "no license" approach to avoid companies being able to make use of their code at all
@codeforchaos I went to the open source summit in Los Angeles four years back. Honestly I was rather uneasy about the amount of corporate money flying around. Ethically this is very difficult area. How much RedHat code is in mainstream linux distros now? How much Canonical? These are companies with deep pockets.
@codeforchaos Yes. There will be a lot of money flowing into OS in the future. Mostly into these companies, because that´s the easiest way.
Most big OS projects are alreasy backed by companies.
@codeforchaos It is true that these companies have deep pockets and paid contributors, and outside contributions do not generally get compensated for. At the same time the end product, including what these companies' deep pockets paid for, is available to any one for free too.
There might be better models for soliciting and compensating contributions, e.g. bug bounties or GitCoin. At the same time free labor in exchange for a free and open produce isn't always "evil".