[nurbl]

Seems to be precisely what "free-rider" means; entities benefiting from public resources without contributing anything back.

[roenxi]

Also, if the end user can't use it for commercial purposes then the software is by definition not FOSS software. That would be a major restriction on their freedom. It is impossible to have a FOSS community that restricts its software from being used in commerce. The emphasis has always been on the F-for-freedom part of FOSS, especially after the schism with the OSS people who don't see freedom as the same level of priority.

[ADeerAppeared]

> if the end user can't use it for commercial purposes then the software is by definition not FOSS software.

Okay but like, who cares. The definition of "Free Software" is just whatever RMS screeches about. The OSI is rather biased towards them, and importantly, does not own the trademark.

> That would be a major restriction on their freedom.

Then why complain that they excercise that freedom.

Either commercial use without paying back is an explicitly granted and supported freedom, and then companies doing that is fine. Or it is not, in which case restrict commercial use on the free license if you want companies to pay up.

[ADeerAppeared]

Public transit companies that make tickets explicitly free and then get upset nobody pays them would get laughed out the room for bemoaning "free-riders".

It may be a "technically correct" use of the word, but it's not a useful definition to include this.

[jcelerier]

The public transit companies are being paid though ? Through tax instead of through direct payment

[remram]

Are they "public resources" or are they gifts?

If you have a precise idea in mind about how you want it to be used and how they should reward you, put that in the license.

You even have OSI-approved options here, like AGPL.