I find no shame in people choosing to give something away without asking for compensation.
I find no shame in an economy which contains a significant amount of resources given gratis by choice.
I do find shame in the insistence that everyone who gets a whiff of usefulness of some creation owes the creator (or the descendants of the owner of the creation) a toll.
Advocates of open source often claim that creators of open source software can make money by selling services to users, like consulting services. As this article (and others) describe, this approach also didn't work that well for the OpenSSL team.
My perspective is principally the harmony or conflict of the open source -ness of OpenSSL, and the Tragedy of the Commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons of all using a resource while few feeling the need to compensate.
It is interesting that open source has often found solutions around this 'tragedy' - ownership (contributing or forking) vs access (using) - but I feel a shame that those that work hard towards creating a public good (OpenSSL) only receive recognition when things go wrong, while those that have criticised (the possibly competing consultancies, perhaps) have themselves not forked or recreated a better solution, as it seems having the ability, confidence or willingness to carry the risk to credibility (for a better solution), or knowingly taken advantage of an exploit, is more profitable than giving back.
tl;dr I admire these Steves and other contributors very much, and wish they get what they deserve. I guess the world of Star Trek is still somewhat way off.