If I want a thing badly enough to make it happen for myself and others such that I make a code change, that's orthogonal to whatever others are paying each other for around that code. So long as I don't later lose access to that code, why care? I'm all for avoiding contributing to ventures that are harmful in some way, but I don't think somebody making money as a side effect is harmful.

The alternative would be to presume that I have some kind of ownership over it by having contributed to it--and I'm a bit allergic to the idea that code can be owned.

> Compare that to vim where it's truly an open source product.

Where there wouldn't be any money in the first place? I don't see popular vim plugin authors getting paid.

Maybe I'm not understanding your point.

I think you are not very accurate about “open source product” vs something like “community led project”.

People being able to adapt their software to their own needs by making changes to the code is exactly what open source is about. This is good.

What is a problem though, is to have the code merged in the main repository requires you to gift them the rights to your code (not just license it). They are also not very clear about this in the summary of their CLA: “You're giving Zed permission to use and share your contributions (like original works or modifications).” which could be misunderstood to just be a usual open source licensing agreement, but seems to be complete handover of copyright: https://zed.dev/cla

This is not good, and something people should be more aware of when contributing.