Yeah, it all depends on what agreement was made when they started using the software.

Right? For me the free as in freedom always had the upside and downside of people have the freedom to use it how they want. Within the very lenient license which might be in use of course. This can include the freedom to do things with the software which the creators and contributors might not agree with or like.

But in the end a certain trust in humanity and the concept of freedom itself mean that we believe the net sum of making your software free will be positive for everyone. And to this day I haven't managed to become enough of a cynic to change my mind on this.

Its possible to dicuss licenses which helps prevent certain abuse cases. In fact those already exist. However people talk like this is the main issue of FOSS which I don't think it is at all.

I'd like to understand your point of view, why do you think that it's counterproductive?

I don't think that there is such company trying to destroy FOSS. To me its more likely that people get annoyed that companies use Open Source without paying any money to the developers who maintain it. And there are lot of places trying to integrate a way to pay for Open Source software. And I'm all for it! But it needs to be confronted upfront, maybe part of the license if that is what they want. Not like a patent troll does with after usage.

I understand why its annoying, but why licensing it this way then? It was part of the contract letting them use without requiring any payment. Also developers are not responsible for any damage the code does, as they weren't paid at all. They are not responsible to do any work.

If this goes on, then many companies might start abandoning Open Source. Because if people start shaming them and asking to pay for something they never signed up, it could harm the FOSS world. There will be people who are not happy with the low payment and want more, because others get more too. Then fake devs jump in to steal Open Source (forking and rebranding) to just shame companies and require payment too.

It feels to me like a bunch of "rules for thee but not for me" type people co-opting a movement.

I don't have to pay cause I'm special. But you do.

Wish it have a small "designed in Gimp", "designed in inkscape" or "designed in kitra" Watermark in the bottom right corner

Does anyone know the actual designer behind them? I would be curious to know.

Certainly. Quantify that shit; at $100/hr, push 20 hours worth of PRs per dev. But the ratio of companies that do that instead of bullying FOSS projects into doing free work to suit their particular needs is pretty poor.

There are licenses that allow for free non-commercial/personal use but paid business use.

None. Those things are incompatible with each other.

If you don't want a permissive license don't license your software that way, your motivation clearly doesn't align with these licenses anyway.

Why does asking for money not align with the licenses?