I understand that. And that kind of debt makes sense in individuals. For a corporation (especially a large one), there is no single code of morality (either religious, social or anything else) that animates it except the bottom line. I submit that even "culture" and things which have a social angle are done specifically because they are profitable in the long term.
From that perspective, taking software that has been expressly allowed (in black and white) to be used with more or less no restrictions and without any need to give back is perfectly fine (and in some sense, even moral) as far the corporation and the code by which it functions is concerned. That's how I see it.
If the open source movement is interested in being sustainable etc., the licenses should bake in some kind of clause that incentivises the companies to pay back either monetarily or with effort. Of course, that would hurt their adoption so they choose not to but if they do that, they can't really complain when companies just take their work and use it many times without even an attribution.
From that perspective, taking software that has been expressly allowed (in black and white) to be used with more or less no restrictions and without any need to give back is perfectly fine (and in some sense, even moral) as far the corporation and the code by which it functions is concerned. That's how I see it.
If the open source movement is interested in being sustainable etc., the licenses should bake in some kind of clause that incentivises the companies to pay back either monetarily or with effort. Of course, that would hurt their adoption so they choose not to but if they do that, they can't really complain when companies just take their work and use it many times without even an attribution.