This is why I feel like it's important to maintain the distinction between "Open Source" software and "Free Software" even though, as a Free software die-hard I have to admit it seems like we have failed.
The original idea of Free software started when RMS wanted to fix a printer. Xerox said "no", and the the rest is history.
AFAIK the idea of "Open Source" started as a way to make Free Software more palatable to commercial interests. Businesses wanted to develop commercial advantages and not share them with everybody else. I have no idea personally why anyone ever thought this was a worthwhile thing to do, but then there's a lot of human behavior that I find puzzling. In any event, from my POV, we can trace entitlement in Open Source software to it's very root: the whole point was to enable people to use the software without contributing anything back.
Originally, the idea with Free Software was that programmers would charge money for making improvements and fixing bugs. (The idea of charging for copies of already-written software is not excluded, it's fine if you can pull it off.)
I personally figured we would program the computers to do all the work and more-or-less retire in a techno-utopian Star Trek scenario. (Again, from my POV I don't know why everybody isn't on board with this: "Let the robots do the work and we'll take their pay.")
To sum up, the whole "Open Source" movement (as distinct from the "Free Software" movement) is kind of self-contradictory: business has been encouraged to take advantage of the freely-available "Open" software, and so they did. But then the culture became one of entitlement (as contrasted with the contribution-based culture of the GPL).
The original idea of Free software started when RMS wanted to fix a printer. Xerox said "no", and the the rest is history.
AFAIK the idea of "Open Source" started as a way to make Free Software more palatable to commercial interests. Businesses wanted to develop commercial advantages and not share them with everybody else. I have no idea personally why anyone ever thought this was a worthwhile thing to do, but then there's a lot of human behavior that I find puzzling. In any event, from my POV, we can trace entitlement in Open Source software to it's very root: the whole point was to enable people to use the software without contributing anything back.
Originally, the idea with Free Software was that programmers would charge money for making improvements and fixing bugs. (The idea of charging for copies of already-written software is not excluded, it's fine if you can pull it off.)
I personally figured we would program the computers to do all the work and more-or-less retire in a techno-utopian Star Trek scenario. (Again, from my POV I don't know why everybody isn't on board with this: "Let the robots do the work and we'll take their pay.")
To sum up, the whole "Open Source" movement (as distinct from the "Free Software" movement) is kind of self-contradictory: business has been encouraged to take advantage of the freely-available "Open" software, and so they did. But then the culture became one of entitlement (as contrasted with the contribution-based culture of the GPL).