I expect open source will follow suit in either removing projects or sealing them off.
Similarly, companies will limit access to ensure monetisation.
No one wants their work stolen to train ais and then monetised for not even a mention in exchange.
The dead internet is even more likely to happen.
I feel (or perhaps hope) the spirit of FOSS precludes the notion of "stealing." Besides, open source is no stranger to being monetized for the bare minimum mention required by whatever license.
Taking GPL'd code and redistributing it without making the source available IS stealing. It is community code. If you want to use it, you have to give back. Otherwise pick something with a BSD or MIT license.
... copyright infringement. Against which you might want to lawyer up and sue in court, if you feel litigious (and have have deep pockets to pay for the expenses, or someone else does it for you). But is nowhere as clear cut as stealing, like you mentioned.
I should have been more clear, my point wasn't really on the semantics (and inexactitude) of "stealing." I can agree with your usage in this context.
This will just lead to forks (if your project was popular).
Forking code is not an issue - i can fork half of github and it wont mean much without maintenance.
Well....yeah? open source doesn't mean you don't have to do anything to make it work. Many times I've forked a project, cleaned up maintenance issues so it ran on my instance, and then did a pull request so the original author could incorporate the update.
While we are blessed with many turn-key projects that require little more installation effort than following detailed instructions, FOSS is supposed to be a community effort, not something falling on the shoulders of a tiny maintenance team.
It's also that google is getting worse. It has been slowly declining in quality for a very long time.