[ekjhgkejhgk]

Because the "open source" movement has been co-oped by corporations which promote for precisely this reason.

Actually contributing to a common good is done by building Free and Copyleft software, not "open source" which is term that offers no legal protections and the things you're talking about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft

[NightBlossom]

Typical HN response: pivoting to a pedantic debate about licenses to avoid the actual ethical crisis.

Whether I use GPL, MIT, or a custom Copyleft, it doesn't solve the Cognitive Tax problem. Licensing doesn't fix the fact that a 'community' of highly-paid engineers expects me to provide years of non-perturbative logic for free, while they lack the bandwidth to even peer-review it without an LLM.

You say 'Free Software' protects the user. Fine. But who protects the outlier creator from being mentally strip-mined by a sea of Takers? You’re suggesting a better cage, not a path to sovereignty.

Again: If you can’t verify the math without a chatbot, are you a 'contributor' to the common good, or just a sophisticated parasite?"

[lordkrandel]

No one actually forces anyone to create opensource. It is a choice of creation and licensing. A choice of giving. The fact that you are "supposed" to then maintain and work on it it's just in your mind. If you don't want to give to the public, you can avoid it by not creating, publishing, or licensing differently. You got plenty of choice. Just stop being annoying.