Again, a big misconception that you do Open Source for money and to get rich.
Also, the maintainers "burnt" listed in this blog post got pissed off because they can't control another project ("linux"), that doesn't belong to them or was created by them, to go in a specific direction that they would like.
I blame this on the recent development of "open source as a marketing strategy". I'm getting tired of "open source" products that have restrictive licenses, or that are open source but lock features behind paywalls and subscription plans. It seems open source is just an excuse to ask for "stars" and to get some good will from potential users.
The Open Source world has become what the startup world became: more posers than supporters.
If you're worried that people will steal your code, your idea, or use your product for free, then don't claim it's "open source" and say "source available for auditing purposes" and start paying for contributions.
This issue seems to be the typical case of someone being bothered for someone else, because it implies there's no "recognition of source material" when there's quite a bit of symbiosis between the projects.