It’s a significant problem when “Open Source” is used as an enticement to convince people to work on and improve their product for free, especially when that product inevitably relicenses that work using a sham of a “rewriting” process to claim ownership as though it voids all the volunteer’s efforts that went into design, debug, and other changes, just so that source can be switched to a proprietary license to make the product more VC/IPO friendly. And all of that cuts the knees out of the companies you claim it created in order to capture a portion of their profits despite the fact that they most likely contributed to the popularity and potentially even the development, and therefore success, of said “Open Source”.
IMO, it is just a new version of wage/code theft with a “public good” side-story to convince the gullible that it is somehow “better” and “fair”, when everyone involved were making money, just not as much money as they could be taking with a little bit of court-supported code theft and a hand-waive of “volunteerism”.
The people who use these open models are doing it because they find them useful. That's already plenty of benefit for them. The "ecosystem play" of benefiting from volunteers' mods to open models is certainly a benefit for the model trainer. This fact doesn't eliminate the benefit of people being able to use good models.
IMO, it is just a new version of wage/code theft with a “public good” side-story to convince the gullible that it is somehow “better” and “fair”, when everyone involved were making money, just not as much money as they could be taking with a little bit of court-supported code theft and a hand-waive of “volunteerism”.