And FOSS licenses purposely give away many, if not all, rights typically granted by copyright. If I buy a book and I have the same rights as the author to rewrite and republish that book, and even put my name on it, even to make money on it, then it can be correctly described as being owned by the community rather than owned by the author.
> They chose to depend on the labor of someone who was not compensated for their time or work, which is a privilege.
The developer chose to give away their labor for free, they chose to forego compensation. The FOSS model is clear in considering the ability of the end user to read, modify and redistribute code without limitation to be rights, not privileges. Whether a developer can find a way to make money is orthogonal and incidental. That's a privilege defined by contractual obligation, not a right.
You can have FOSS or you can require developers be compensated for their efforts, but you can't have both. These two concepts are mutually opposed.
>No one is entitled to the developer's time or labor.
No one is entitled to make demands of the developer, but likewise, the developer isn't entitled to make demands of anyone else. As far as the fruits of their labors go, everyone is entitled to whatever they choose to give. That's the whole point of FOSS.
and faker.js seems to be more or less a port of a ruby library which was a port of a perl library.