[matthewmacleod]

I think that nails it.

I will happily contribute to a permissively-licensed code base for a project, although I'm aware that my contributions might be used in some closed-source platform later on. Exchanging my contributions for the ability to do whatever I want with the software is a reasonable trade.

I'm also willing to contribute to projects using copyleft licenses, on the basis that a project that requires all contributors to leave all of their contributions and derivatives of the product in the open offers a fair playing field.

I am way less interested in contributing to this new breed of semi-open projects, which require me to sign over my contributions in exchange for access under a license which stops me from using the project in certain ways, but grants one entity special privileges to use it in that way.

I think the evidence suggests that both GPL and permissively-licensed projects can be wildly successful. There are good reasons for both approaches, with different benefits and trade-offs. It's also legitimate to be irritated at "bad neighbours" who take without contributing back. I'm not convinced that this semi-open licensing approach is a benefit to anyone.

[matkoniecz]

> I'm not convinced that this semi-open licensing approach is a benefit to anyone.

It may be better than fully closed source? Just that it should be self-described as proprietary, with source available.