The problem with FOSS for me is the other side of the FOSS surplus: namely corporate encircling of the commons. The free software movement never had a political analysis of the power imbalance between capital owners and workers. This results in the "Freedom 0" dogma, which makes everything workers produce with a genuine communitarian, laudably pro-social sentiment, to be easily coopted and appropriated into the interests of capital owners (for example with embrace-and-extend, network effects, product bundling, or creative backstabbing of the kind Google did to Linux with the Android app store). LLM scrapers are just the latest iteration of this.

A few years back various groups tried to tackle this problem with a shift to "ethical licensing", such as the non-violent license, the anti-capitalist software license, or the do no harm license. While license-based approaches won't stop capitalists from using the commons to target immigrants (NixOS), enable genocide (Meta) or bomb children (Google), this was in my view worthwhile as a rallying cry of sorts; drawing a line in the sand between capital owners and the public. So if you put your free time on a software project meant for everyone and some billionaire starts coopting it, you can at least make it clear it's non-consensual, even if you can't out-lawyer capital owners. But these ethical licenses initiatives didn't seem to make any strides, due to the FOSS culture issue you describe; traditional software repositories didn't acknowledge or make any infrastructure for them, and ethical licenses would still be generically "non-free" in FOSS spaces.

(Personally, I use FOSS operating systems for 26 years now; I've given up on contributing or participating in the "community" a long time ago, burned out by all the bigotry, hostility, and First World-centrism of its forums.)