Our industry somehow lacks a good understanding of licenses. Like you outline, just use a different license. They might not attract people to contribute (because everyone has motives) but prevent all the aspects of behavior you do not want to see.
I think people have a reasonable understanding, they just want to have their cake and eat it too. Something with e.g. a noncommercial license (or gpl) is way less likely to gain wide adoption so people don't license it that way. Then when it does get used they call it leeching.
I think (maybe controversially) it's the same when people talk about training AI on web content. People want all the upside of their choice of distribution (wider exposure) but complain about the perceived downside (somebody other than them profiting).
When deciding on a license, people are choosing what they think defines success for their code instead of success for the world or the ecosystem or all the current and future users.
They (think they) are optimizing for adoption or quantity of users, regardless of type, meaning do whatever it takes to appeal to business, right now, on business's terms.
If a thing is good and useful, big business will use it on YOUR terms if they have to. But you have to have thought about this some and arrived at a solid principle and reasons for it, and be willing to not care if your thing is not adopted, by an Amazon, today.
You have to be willing to think that it's better for all the users if it is either adopted on GPL terms, or not adopted ...by Amazon. That doesn't mean not adopted, it just means maybe someone who's not a dick might use it instead, and everyone gets TWO benefits out of that single decision. The project itself is more useful long term, and the existence of some other services or products besides Amazon. Either it makes the likes of Amazon better by force, or it allows others who are natively better more oxygen.
90% of the reason people can even enjoy the luxury of the powerful useful rich tools to build things today, for free as kids with no money and no permissions and no special access to their parents work tools etc, is only because other people in the past suffered the inconvenience of defying business and declaring strict ideals. But not just random meaningless idealism with arbitrary limitations, a correct idea, with only the surgically specific and correct limitations, as fully thought out as possible, that stands up to any accusation.
> People want all the upside of their choice of distribution (wider exposure) but complain about the perceived downside (somebody other than them profiting).
That's because copyright exists. You can't compare people not understanding licenses to people ignoring them.
It doesnt help when large abusive, monopolistic companies go on a license smear campaign - e.g. like Amazon vs. elastic and Google's burning hatred for everything AGPL.
