The OSS philosophy was conceived to help end users, not for-profit corporations. Then for-profit corporations co-opted the "Open Source"(tm) label to ensure they could benefit from all this free labor. You and many others are falling for it, and doing their work for them by scolding OSS developers for "going against the OSS philosophy".

So screw this corporate "OSS philosophy", and stop telling people what they "should" do. Those licenses exist and people can use them and this is what happens. We can and should also make different licenses which protect our interests as developers and we don't need corporate shills invoking some philosophical argument to discourage us.

"It was never about the money part"

That seems to be the point being debated now. When a megacorp forks an OSS project and cuts out the author, how does that encourage developers? How does that encourage OSS?

And for that matter, perhaps less ideological but practical, how does that encourage small startups who want to be as open as possible while wanting to be able to scratch out a living working on something they care about?

You suggest staying closed source, rather than tweaking an open-source license to limit corporate forks, for the purpose of protecting OSS philosophy. It strikes me as odd.

> > My personal thought is that we need a new kind of license: community open source. No corporations, just community.

> You are going exactly against the OSS philosophy.

GPL is almost that: community, because if you want to use it in a commercial product you have to make sources available, not to the community but to those who ask for it.

I'm of the opinion that open source is a business tool, and one should use a license that helps one achieve business goals. Those goals can be very personal and about career advancement, or they can be those of a trillion dollar corporation. TFA might benefit from using GPL if they are upset at what MSFT did, or they might work with MSFT to have their work integrated into the original to end the fork, or...