[LaGrange]

> It's not unethical, it's more like being a "fellow traveler" or in clearer terms, a useful idiot.

I mean, the line between a useful idiot and a scab is so thin it barely exists.

> Permissive open source only really makes sense as charity[1], or for libraries you as a developer want to be able to use at future companies[2] or as a component for a corporation's grand strategy.

Edit: nah, I think "as charity" it's bad (takes away from others, corporations don't need your charity), case 2 is at best misguided (just charge them, don't do this for free, please), and only 3 makes sense, as in "language bindings for our product are permissive."