> The law that mandates that companies can't donate to someone on Patreon or help triage bugs or dedicate QA/security time to identifying issues is the requirement for CEO's to demonstrate good judgment in managing the company by maximizing profit for shareholders.

People place an over-emphasis on this. Minecraft broke, the situation they ran into is no different than if their engineering team had introduced an XSS error in their own codebase. If this isn't something that's affecting company profits, then why are they complaining? And if it is affecting company profits, then it's in the shareholder interest to figure out how to support the work so their stuff doesn't break. Nobody says that the law mandates that companies can't have a QA team, companies are allowed to care about reliability. So if donating to someone's Patreon or kicking resources their way improves the stability of a product, then that's in a company's interest, it's not violating shareholder rights to take tangible steps to make your product more secure/reliable.

In general, companies are not quite as constrained as you are suggesting by requirements to pursue profit in the first place, but even from that perspective if we assume they are completely bound in that way, this is still either:

A) not a problem they should be complaining about since apparently it doesn't affect their profits, or

B) their problem to solve, since it affects their profits.

----

> If you design your house with no doors or windows and then proudly announce the fact it has no doors and windows and everyone is welcome to take a look around you don't get to blame people who wander in from time to time and take a look around.

I don't think anyone here is blaming people for using Open Source projects for free, that's by design. I'm blaming them for then turning around and saying, "hey, this thing we're using for free without contributing at all broke, something is clearly wrong with your process, why didn't you stop us from using your thing for free?"

It is directly by design that people can use Open Source projects without contributing back. That's not really the issue here.

----

> If you are making FOSS you are perpetuating a broken system and are accountable for that.

See, this kind of gets at the core of my criticism. The log4j devs didn't wake up in the morning with their house on fire. Minecraft did. Log4j devs didn't have a contract with Minecraft, they weren't losing money because Minecraft's house was on fire, none of this had to be an emergency for them. But somehow, not only is this suddenly log4j's problem to solve, but also it's their fault that Minecraft used their code and they're somehow responsible for perpetuating a 'broken' system?

It just doesn't make any sense; if you don't think that Open Source is maintainable or safe, then don't use it in your company. If you think it's valuable, then think more than 3 months down the road and commit to helping it thrive so you can continue to rely on it (and explain to your shareholders that sometimes share price is affected by zero-day vulnerabilities in products). Or don't, but then don't expect us to do a bunch of soul searching over how we can serve you better or change our culture to suite you.

Feels very weird to be relying on a commons as critical infrastructure by your own choice, and then complaining that the people building the commons are the problem because they're somehow enabling the system.

> AGPL/Copyleft/Ethical Source/Noncommercial licening and Social Domain licenses all seem to be pointing to a new economic future that

I don't understand why it's the job of people working for free to not only give people their code for free, but also to figure out the entire social/economic structure for how to get companies to contribute to the ecosystem.