If someone manages to take over OSM and put a restrictive license on the data, we'll just fork from the last open version and keep on doing what we do best: we map!
You both state the major reasons why people do it.
I guess I feel lucky hitting the sweet spot of enjoying the work I get to do on open source and be paid for it at the same time.
It's almost as if the absolute quantity of regulation is a wedge issue that has very little to do with the quality of governance.
My notion of regulations isn't about quantity, but about quality. The lower the quality, over time, the higher the quantity. Thus forming a sort of spider-web-like structure, except spider webs are often of greater quality than legislation.
It’s awesome to know you’re also passionate about OSM.
And for many uses there is no viable alternative.
I can see you've received lots of praise for your commitment to open source, your passion about mapping, your contribution to the world. Regardless, the above statement just seems sad and depressing, the acknowledgement and resignation.
Either you didn't mean that word, or you projected into parents' comment something that you believe but that he didn't say nor seem to believe himself.
If that makes me a selfish person (or less commendable than the OP), so be it.
The farmers ploughs the fields and harvests the crops, and earns his reward. Others will take that crop and make billions more in distribution, retail sales, as ingredients in other foods and so on.
Each works for his reward, and if the satisfaction you get is not enough then you need to seek a space elsewhere in the value chain.
If it is enough then don't worry about how others extract their value - it doesn't impact on you. The Baker is as worth of his bread as the Farmer is of the wheat.
I'd never be worried about dollars at all after that.
Oh, wait . . .