I personally don't think we should expect more from a "richer" user as soon as they're following the license of OSS (or expect anything different at all, regardless users' background or purpose).
It just doesn't make sense, not even morally.
It just doesn't make sense, not even morally.
That developer is more directly profiting from the tools. If you want to make a moral argument, surely it's them that should be passing money down the chain.
If I buy something from Amazon, should it be on me to identify the open source projects they use and pay them? Further where does it stop? Someone presumably used Linux in all this, do I need to send Linus a cut? Which driver writers do I need to support? How many copies of busy box were used in all this?
Commercial use is something devs are more torn because they feel they're being exploited while the client is not doing anything wrong inherently (doing business).
And in that case, you have to adjust your expectation to be exactly the same as the license you put in to resolve such cognitive dissonance.
Ah yes, those famous knives that jump up and attack people, when they're not too tired from autonomously cutting steaks and chopping vegetables.
Very nice work and congrats on taking this on successfully.
Alas our cultural narrative frames achievements as products of genius individuals existing in a vacuum rather than celebrating them as accomplishments of humanity or at least the societies that enabled them to be brought about.
So yeah, legally it doesn't make any sense. Morally it's highly debatable.