Of course the blame is on the developers. If you don't want commercial enterprises to repackage your project and exclude you, choose a license that says that! How is this even controversial?
Because then everybody will jump at you and shout "OMG you don't allow for repackaging, don't ever dare to imply that your code is Open Source with all the permissions and liberties that your free labor should grant, so we don't have interest in your shitty proprietary stuff and will never check it out".
As seen on HN multiple times.
Which is what the parent refers to with the more politely put "either your fault for using a permissive license OR shame on you for not using a permissive license"
We know that building a business is hard. There is no silver bullet that provides both the adoption rates of OSS and the monetizability of proprietary software. So you pick one, and live with the consequences.
You can both want a project to be usable commercially and still feel bad about being iced out by people who are vastly better off financially than you are. I had a big project for my Ph.D. thesis that was good enough to get spun out into a startup. They didn't even offer me a job.
They were under no obligation to, but it set my career back five years and I'm still angry about missing out on the obvious route from graduating to being really awesome at what I wanted to be really awesome at.
It's not controversial that they did this, I was a junior employee and they didn't have a ton of money. It still significantly damaged my career to be forced to start all over on a totally new thing despite literally inventing what they were doing without me.
Blame? There doesn't have to be blame for that to suck for the little guy.
