[locknitpicker]

> "If you copy my work, you should share your work too."

Not exactly. The GPL way is that you should share my work under the same terms if you want to share it, even if modifying it.

You are not required to share anything if you don't actually share anything, and just run it yourself. That's where all the criticism towards cloud providers who freely use FLOSS is directed.

> But we are talking about a social contract, which is not quite the same thing. The social contract is what leads some devs who previously enjoyed publishing their work openly to no longer feel the same way.

There is clearly a misalignment in expectations from some FLOSS enthusiasts. The main FLOSS licenses focus exclusively on distribution, but their expectations somehow extend well beyond distribution. We hear those FLOSS enthusiasts criticize and attack companies for using software exactly according to their terms, and somehow that is framed as abuse if said users happen to be bigger than some arbitrary boundary.