I've been an open source maintainer (and still am to a smaller degree) and I think sneak is right. I'm happy for people to use things I create and release, and their use doesn't impose costs on me.
Where do you draw the line between extending your project and providing free labor to a for-profit company?
Fixing bugs is less controversial, while finding solutions to issues arising in bespoke production environments, with short deadlines, is grueling work for which companies are usually gladly purchasing support contract. Where is the line past which you ask for money, and are you really fine helping a company avoid lawsuits and brand damage after they neglect updates for years, with no gratitude from their side? Case in point: log4shell in late 2021
I work on my various projects to the extent that it is fun. If it stops being fun, I don't do it. Making something broadly useful is generally more fun than helping someone with a one-off thing, though that is not my decision criteria.
If someone wants me to do something that isn't fun, they can offer me money, though they will generally need to offer me enough more money than it isn't worth it.
If you want to bountysource a solution do that. If you don’t want to fix an issue don’t.
If that sounds fun to you, I really cannot argue against it. Usually, that is part of a support contract, and therefore hobbyist open source developers basically supply free labor to for-profit companies.
My project might be given to you for free but if you want my time you'll have to pay for it - and i get to decide if i'll sell it to you.
Or, as the case may be, claim that I'll look at them soon, and never make it back.
(Or, when at one point I had a job as an open source developer, to the extent that I thought it would improve our software.)