Why would any solo dev release open source?
-
I agree with you 100%. Your assessment of the situation is right on point. I especially like when you said,
Jeremy Falcon wrote:
I don't see any other professional on the planet giving away their time and work for free.
Also, you're bullets for times when you would open source code are spot on. Thanks so much for joining the discussion. I really enjoyed reading your points and they encouraged me to see that at least someone else sees it as it is.
Any time man. It was a good topic.
Jeremy Falcon
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
To leave a legacy. Other than posting articles here, I don't do open source software.
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
raddevus wrote:
I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them.
Any volunteer work robs someone from a paid job. For software, I am guilty, I like to pay back the community that educated me. There was no school when I was young. In other fields, yes, there's a growing trend for volunteers. They deserve it. If people are willing and it contributes then no harm done, right? --edit And because I could. The name of the company is Exceptional Magic, and one article and a quick download changed it.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
Don't forget to think about Blender. I believe Ton had already made significant money before he open sourced it: ["Money doesn't interest me" - Ton Roosendaal interview](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJEWOTZnFeg)
Our Forgotten Astronomy | Object Oriented Programming with C++ | Wordle solver
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
raddevus wrote:
Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded?
Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. [IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019](https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-landmark-acquisition-red-hat-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future) but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. [Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018](https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-github-for-7-5-billion/) and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair? Regarding OSS, open source means free as in free speech, not free beer, meaning one can make money from selling OSS. But most people misunderstand the meaning of free to mean free beer. Most companies use OSS because they do not cost anything. On the one hand, we have very expensive Windows license, while on the other, we have free Linux OSes. Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
-
raddevus wrote:
Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded?
Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. [IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019](https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-landmark-acquisition-red-hat-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future) but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. [Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018](https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-github-for-7-5-billion/) and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair? Regarding OSS, open source means free as in free speech, not free beer, meaning one can make money from selling OSS. But most people misunderstand the meaning of free to mean free beer. Most companies use OSS because they do not cost anything. On the one hand, we have very expensive Windows license, while on the other, we have free Linux OSes. Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
All of your points are fantastic. I agree 100%.
Shao Voon Wong wrote:
Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
Yes, that would make the most sense of all. That way developers who work on the projects could get paid while still making the OS affordable to all. Thanks for the great post! :thumbsup:
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
raddevus wrote:
Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it?
Where 'better' is defined how? I suspect Larry Wall enjoys being the creator of Perl. And some other tools.
raddevus wrote:
People don't donate actual $$.
Oh, you mean money. If you want money for something then you should start with a company. Not sure where ActiveState and Larry Wall are now but at least at one time several people that were actively involved with Perl worked for that company.
raddevus wrote:
When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things.
Except 1. Some people are hired by companies because those companies want the expert in that product working for them. (ActiveState is an example.) 2. Some people are paid significant sums to speak at various functions (public and private) because they are the author of some highly used software.
raddevus wrote:
I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them
I am rather certain that developers that contribute to Open Source do it for some of the following reasons. - They like working on code. - They like becoming known. - They think they have a better solution. - They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company. - Companies fail. Often with a cost (money) to the original person. The cost for open source is very low and it only fails if the original person gives up on it. - They have ideological viewpoints that support it. - Looks good on the resume.
-
Thanks for joining the discussion. Those are all good and I have experienced many of them myself as I share everything I write. It's definitely not always about the money. However, as soon as you create something that is really extremely useful I believe your mind would change. For example, what if you really spent time building your own phone which rivaled iPhone and you wrote the entire OS for it. (This is an extreme example) But the point is that you would want to share it but you would also deserve to be paid for your work. Here's another example, a long time ago I saw a teenager who created a microwave bacon fryer. It was simple but very useful way to make microwave bacon. She sold it in walmart and got rich. Nothing wrong with that. But if it were Microwave Bacon Code then it would be expected to be downloaded for free to every microwave. :) But as much or more work goes into the code.
raddevus wrote:
But if it were Microwave Bacon Code then it would be expected to be downloaded for free to every microwave
I think you do not know how many software companies exist now and have been created in the past. Many fail. But so do companies that have tangible products. Consider Pet Rocks. Or more recently the significant downturn of NFTs. I worked for a software company that had at least two funding rounds and at least from the demonstration standpoint had a wonderful service. But there was no reasonable way that they could have ever monetized it. The market was very limited and very cash poor.
-
Thanks for joining the discussion. Those are very good reasons for personal growth etc. I believe in that too. Here's a question though, "What if? 1. You discovered that BigCorp created a service which uses your component and serves 100 million people 2. BigCorp profits $1 per year from each user 3. You get nothing. Not even recognition because it is running inside their "Walls" as part of a service that is not distributed so there is nothing you can do, because they use it for free. Would you be okay with that, if you found out 20 years from now? Meanwhile you've had to work to build your own retirement etc. and to pay for your own healthcare etc. This is most likely happening because of the world of : Microservices / Web Apps behind the wall of huge corps. Devs write code that is OSS which is incorporated into huge services that those sole devs could never create but they have actually created part of the web service themselves. Huge corps aren't selling the code itself but instead are selling the use of the service so they fall outside the limitations of OSS license. They get free work.
raddevus wrote:
Would you be okay with that, if you found out 20 years from now?
What if instead they hired you as a 'guru' to support all of their product lines because you were the author. And paid you significantly more than you were making as a developer. Some real open source examples that you might want to consider - C# Moq. They made a badly planned effort to monetize their product recently. - MySQL. Now owned by Oracle who is sort of attempting to monetize. So much so that there is now a branch taken from the original named MariaDB.
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
Despite another's claim that no one else gives away services for free there are of course a number of problems with that assertion. Open Source Software is just time. I doubt any developer goes out to buy a new computer just so they can create a open source project. The vast majority by far already have everything they need. So there is no cost. Some might choose to spend extra (a domain name) but that is a choice. Almost everything else requires spending money. Consider a car mechanic. They might work for free on the local church van or youth center. But car parts are something they need to actually buy. They need to do this for every fix. What about Habitat for Humanity? During Covid there was a loose organization set up of individuals who built desks for kids that had none. What about trades (plumbing, electrician, etc) workers who donate time and money (equipment/supplies) to help out neighbors and even strangers who are having problems. Having done some work recently I can state that having just the equipment for this sort of thing is a substantial cost for even small projects. And those people probably also have a computer.
-
raddevus wrote:
Would you be okay with that, if you found out 20 years from now?
What if instead they hired you as a 'guru' to support all of their product lines because you were the author. And paid you significantly more than you were making as a developer. Some real open source examples that you might want to consider - C# Moq. They made a badly planned effort to monetize their product recently. - MySQL. Now owned by Oracle who is sort of attempting to monetize. So much so that there is now a branch taken from the original named MariaDB.
jschell wrote:
What if instead they hired you as a 'guru' to support all of their product lines because you were the author. And paid you significantly more than you were making as a developer.
That is a very good point and is one of the dreams of OSS devs, but I'm just not sure how much it really happens. I think that it doesn't happen as often as we hope because I think BigCorps are often using things without wanting anyone to really know -- as a way of limiting litigation. I also think that statistically it doesn't happen much because there are vast numbers of OSS components but rarely do I hear of this. But, hopefully I'm wrong and it does happen more often than I think.
-
raddevus wrote:
Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded?
Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. [IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019](https://www.redhat.com/en/about/press-releases/ibm-closes-landmark-acquisition-red-hat-34-billion-defines-open-hybrid-cloud-future) but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. [Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018](https://news.microsoft.com/2018/06/04/microsoft-to-acquire-github-for-7-5-billion/) and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair? Regarding OSS, open source means free as in free speech, not free beer, meaning one can make money from selling OSS. But most people misunderstand the meaning of free to mean free beer. Most companies use OSS because they do not cost anything. On the one hand, we have very expensive Windows license, while on the other, we have free Linux OSes. Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
Shao Voon Wong wrote:
Linus Torvalds did not do okay! He created Linux and Git. IBM bought Red Hat for 34 billion in 2019 but he did not get a single cent though IBM and Red Hat are long time sponsors of Linux Foundation. Microsoft acquired GitHub for $7.5 billion in 2018 and he did not get any money while people got rich from his creations. Do you think this is fair?
Do I? Hmmm...more importantly does he? Well yes he does think it is fair. Linus Torvalds on Why Open Source Solves the Biggest Problems - The New Stack[^] "does he have any regrets about choosing the GPLv2 license? — Torvalds answers “Absolutely not… I’m 100% convinced that the license has been a big part of the success of Linux (and Git, for that matter)"
Shao Voon Wong wrote:
Why can't we have some OS (that is priced moderately) in between?
Because... You expect it run on your hardware. Even though there are a million different variations in hardware. And you expect that you can make money by delivering something that runs on one of those million different hardware set ups.
-
raddevus wrote:
Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it?
Where 'better' is defined how? I suspect Larry Wall enjoys being the creator of Perl. And some other tools.
raddevus wrote:
People don't donate actual $$.
Oh, you mean money. If you want money for something then you should start with a company. Not sure where ActiveState and Larry Wall are now but at least at one time several people that were actively involved with Perl worked for that company.
raddevus wrote:
When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things.
Except 1. Some people are hired by companies because those companies want the expert in that product working for them. (ActiveState is an example.) 2. Some people are paid significant sums to speak at various functions (public and private) because they are the author of some highly used software.
raddevus wrote:
I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them
I am rather certain that developers that contribute to Open Source do it for some of the following reasons. - They like working on code. - They like becoming known. - They think they have a better solution. - They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company. - Companies fail. Often with a cost (money) to the original person. The cost for open source is very low and it only fails if the original person gives up on it. - They have ideological viewpoints that support it. - Looks good on the resume.
I think you make a lot of great points in your post. I definitely feel that this is one of the things that gets me:
jschell wrote:
They do not want the commitment of a full time job/company.
That's why I was (probably wrongly) hoping that 1. I could release as Open Source 2. Lots of people could use it and many of them (also sole devs & smaller companies) could use it for free or very cheap ($12 per year) 2. Add licensing that says, "Hey, if this thing takes off and BigCorp starts using it, then you will pay me well for all my hard work." That's the Real Dream. :rolleyes:
-
raddevus wrote:
But if it were Microwave Bacon Code then it would be expected to be downloaded for free to every microwave
I think you do not know how many software companies exist now and have been created in the past. Many fail. But so do companies that have tangible products. Consider Pet Rocks. Or more recently the significant downturn of NFTs. I worked for a software company that had at least two funding rounds and at least from the demonstration standpoint had a wonderful service. But there was no reasonable way that they could have ever monetized it. The market was very limited and very cash poor.
jschell wrote:
I think you do not know how many software companies exist now and have been created in the past. Many fail.
I absolutely get that. I think that mostly what businesses do, is fail. It's very difficult to get a business going. IMO, Much harder than writing code. That's why I'm thinking / hoping that now that I have a great idea for a SaaS that could be offered to Companies of all sizes to run On-Prem that solves a specific problem for them, that I want to make sure if I release it to open source (and I really want to release it to Open Source) then I can protect myself so if it really takes off as I think it would that I would then be remunerated properly. It's definitely not just about the $$$ for me, because I've been a dev for 30 years. But if the thing takes off I definitely don't want to say, "oh well, I could've made happy $$ that would help my family but since I opened-sourced it I still drive a crappy car and am living paycheck to paycheck.
-
Despite another's claim that no one else gives away services for free there are of course a number of problems with that assertion. Open Source Software is just time. I doubt any developer goes out to buy a new computer just so they can create a open source project. The vast majority by far already have everything they need. So there is no cost. Some might choose to spend extra (a domain name) but that is a choice. Almost everything else requires spending money. Consider a car mechanic. They might work for free on the local church van or youth center. But car parts are something they need to actually buy. They need to do this for every fix. What about Habitat for Humanity? During Covid there was a loose organization set up of individuals who built desks for kids that had none. What about trades (plumbing, electrician, etc) workers who donate time and money (equipment/supplies) to help out neighbors and even strangers who are having problems. Having done some work recently I can state that having just the equipment for this sort of thing is a substantial cost for even small projects. And those people probably also have a computer.
I actually agree with your examples...except... Those things don't scale like Software. A plumber can never fix 100 million pipes himself. A mechanic can never fix 100 million cars himself. The point is that if you create a software solution it may be used by 100 million people. Ah, and the mechanic may create an add-on that he sells that allows consumers to up their gas mileage. Then, 100 million people could buy it. He may even tell people how it works -- and be protected by patent protection. However, if I tell you how the software works and then you take the source and build it and use it for 100 million users there is no patent protection (and I'm glad you can't patent software). So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
-
You can consider this discussion Part 2 of this one: Open Source / Source-Available / Dual-License: We Need a new license! [^] I have a few questions: 1. Has any solo developer released Open Source Software (OSS) and then been better off for it? a) there are numerous stories of OSS devs who have been so frustrated that they later yanked their software and caused great tumult 2. Why would any solo developer ever release their software as OSS? Debunked Myth Hasn't Proliferated Yet The only answer I can come up with is "They think they will be helped along by the generosity of those who use their software". But that myth has been debunked. People don't donate actual $$. If you don't believe this, watch this video of Bruno Lowagie of iText fame (text to PDF conversion) and all of his struggles. Creating OSS is actually exasperating. Open Source Survival: A Story from the Trenches - YouTube[^] The video is long but I watched it at 1.5x speed. Linus & Linux? Ok, I'll give you this one, Linus seems to have done ok, but can you name any others who have really succeeded? When you release your software as OSS you can't actually profit from others using it. You can only profit by charging for documentation or support or other on-the-side things. That means only huge companies who can build huge support structures can really make money. That means no single dev could ever really do that. I'm pretty sure OSS is now just a way for large companies to use developer's solutions without ever having to pay them. Tell my why I'm wrong.
-
Why would any solo dev release software at all? If you release it for free, no one will buy it. Obviously. Because it's free. If you release it for not-free, no one will buy it. Obviously. Because it isn't free. The only winning move is not to play.
-
jschell wrote:
I think you do not know how many software companies exist now and have been created in the past. Many fail.
I absolutely get that. I think that mostly what businesses do, is fail. It's very difficult to get a business going. IMO, Much harder than writing code. That's why I'm thinking / hoping that now that I have a great idea for a SaaS that could be offered to Companies of all sizes to run On-Prem that solves a specific problem for them, that I want to make sure if I release it to open source (and I really want to release it to Open Source) then I can protect myself so if it really takes off as I think it would that I would then be remunerated properly. It's definitely not just about the $$$ for me, because I've been a dev for 30 years. But if the thing takes off I definitely don't want to say, "oh well, I could've made happy $$ that would help my family but since I opened-sourced it I still drive a crappy car and am living paycheck to paycheck.
-
To leave a legacy. Other than posting articles here, I don't do open source software.
-
I actually agree with your examples...except... Those things don't scale like Software. A plumber can never fix 100 million pipes himself. A mechanic can never fix 100 million cars himself. The point is that if you create a software solution it may be used by 100 million people. Ah, and the mechanic may create an add-on that he sells that allows consumers to up their gas mileage. Then, 100 million people could buy it. He may even tell people how it works -- and be protected by patent protection. However, if I tell you how the software works and then you take the source and build it and use it for 100 million users there is no patent protection (and I'm glad you can't patent software). So, again, I'm just talking about protecting OSS creators so that if their package or solution does get used by 100s of millions of people by BigCorp and BigCorp didn't have to pay for any dev then somehow the original OSS dev should get her "fair share".
You can copyright source and you can patent algorithms/processes. In the US, they allow you to make ridiculous software patents, never use them, and then sue people for infringement. Patent trolls! I remember researching an algorithm I wrote to ensure that there were no patent infringements. We did not patent ourself, but keep it as a trade secret.