FOSS licenses don't allow requiring payment for source code. Even if they did, they would have to do it for all users and not just corporate users, or they'd be violating their own terms against discrimination on fields of endeavor. What they
can do is charge for
binaries of the software, which is completely different. And they can't stop anyone else from redistributing it for free. So the first person who pays for it can just give it to corporations for free, and the copyright holder can't do squat about it. These are all features of the licenses, to prevent nasty developers from putting up roadblocks and gates to prevent the collaboration and sharing of the source code.
A corporation is a user too. Imagine if instead of corporate users, we were talking about rich users. Or imagine if 99% of the public used the code, and none of them paid, so people started talking about forcing the public to pay for the code.
Nobody asked the developers to make this code. Nobody asked them to put a FOSS license on it. Nobody ever promised payment. But now that they see dollar signs, the developers want theirs. It's greed, pure and simple.
FOSS was not created to give volunteer developers a living. It was created to give people freedom. No more, no less.
A corporation is a user too. Imagine if instead of corporate users, we were talking about rich users. Or imagine if 99% of the public used the code, and none of them paid, so people started talking about forcing the public to pay for the code.
Nobody asked the developers to make this code. Nobody asked them to put a FOSS license on it. Nobody ever promised payment. But now that they see dollar signs, the developers want theirs. It's greed, pure and simple.
FOSS was not created to give volunteer developers a living. It was created to give people freedom. No more, no less.