I'm willing to bet almost everyone who does free and open source software is secretly hoping it will come back to them somehow. Usually as an actual job, maybe as a consultant for the software they created, maybe custom feature work. These days it's often a patreon or github sponsorships which are ethical ways to make money. Maybe it's the prestige of having one's full name attached to some major project that drives them. Maybe it's the enthusiasm for computing freedom and the copyleft ideals: sharing your work and benefiting from the work of others in return, knowing that you're adding to a commons and that your freedom is ensured.

Expectations can be as low as basic respect and acknowledgement. But they do exist.

You're absolutely right that most people don't seem to think through the licenses that they choose. That's my point though. That's why I came here. To tell everyone that it makes no sense to choose anything but AGPLv3 or proprietary. If you agree with me, then upvote the comment so that more people will see it and hopefully avoid falling into the permissive licensing trap.

Licensing something as Free Software (i.e. under a copyleft license) isn't "giving it up", so there's no contradiction with retaining (some) control.

> If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem.

Or the problem is with the people who want to take control because they thought the original creator "gave it up".

> I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them.

Yup, better make sure to go with a copyleft license.