[onezerozeroone]

What's confusing about it? An open-source project gets started...dozens or hundreds of people contribute to make it what it is...then a relative handful go off and sell it, profiting off the hard work of others who never see a dime.

If you got a hundred people together to collaboratively build a mansion, volunteering their time and resources, with the implication that it would be something "open" and jointly built and owned by all...then flipped the house to a private company for $10MM and kept all the proceeds...that would seem a bit unethical, no?

[ewzimm]

That makes sense. I just don't usually hear that complaint about free software. Exploiting people's work for profit happens all over the place, but you're talking about exploiting work where there is explicit permission to exploit it. They are still releasing source, so if I hijack your metaphor, they kept all the proceeds but continued to build the mansion and give everyone with a phone the ability to instantly copy the mansion and make their own mansion-selling business if they want.