It's not unethical, it's more like being a "fellow traveler" or in clearer terms, a useful idiot.
People with money (corporations) were always the ones to benefit most from permissive open source, they're best placed for it.
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.
[1] "Here, have this, I built it and I want to share it so that it doesn't go to waste sitting on my storage."
[2] Only the case if you accept outside contributions with no copyright assignment, since otherwise you have the power to relicense your own code.
> 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."
People with money (corporations) were always the ones to benefit most from permissive open source, they're best placed for it.
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.
[1] "Here, have this, I built it and I want to share it so that it doesn't go to waste sitting on my storage."
[2] Only the case if you accept outside contributions with no copyright assignment, since otherwise you have the power to relicense your own code.