Yes, these people need to know their actions are routinely hated in the community. They should be boo'd at conferences too.
I'm unsure if we should lose sleep over something the author likely chose. Its their right to not care how the code is used, maybe we should abide their wishes?
Is there perhaps there's an issue with licensing? Eg there's no easy license akin to MIT for small time devs, but less open for $50M VC babies? Ie is there a scenario where an author like this wants something akin to MIT for small groups, but still doesn't want to be taken advantage of by massively backed corporations?
And now we have entire threads like this of people crying because some company used someone's software exactly as the license allows.
It's a shame, but there really is no sympathy for projects that choose the wrong license. Stallman knew this decades ago and somehow even now we're still learning it.
People were optimizing for being the most useful and therefore getting the most use.
Don't get me wrong, license is important. However it doesn't have nearly the effect many people claim.
Unless you can find a large team willing to maintain your system a fork is something that is not realistically possible. As volunteers I doubt you can get enough help, but if you are rich you can hire plenty of developers who would love to help.
I suspect a lawyer could look at the state of WebKit and Chrome these days and conclude there is so little original code remaining that it can be re-licensed to closed source (see a lawyer for what this complex bit of law means) - worst case they only have to rewrite a small amount.