> I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay.

That violates the first clause of the open source definition:

https://opensource.org/osd

It probably violates 5 and 6 too.

> But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that people should pay for their products, it just seems fair to me that they should not get community products for free.

Windows is not open source software.

I think one of the most important parts of open source is that it's available to even those you don't like.

I simply do not get this corporate hate. Corporations and individuals can both use it for good and bad. A company might use open source to make a pacemaker to save lives or world improving research, or it might be Facebook and sell personal data.

AGPL tries to solve this