[augustohp]

I think it is a pretty fair as they have people working full time in their products since their conception. I'd rather companies providing their source and strugling to monetize their product than companies selling just closed source alternatives.

Restrictions could be provided by people through OSS, these companies don't prevent these alternatives from existing. The lack of interest does. The same could be said about many OSS that strugle to receive donations.

I could agree that a world where only OSS without monetization exists, where people donate and keep people investing their time on improving OSS without needing restrictions. The reality is that without these restrictions, people are not willing to pay.