I'm sorry, but this article just seems to muddle the issues, based on some misguided idea that open source was a method for plucky independent developers to pro

I'm sorry, but this article just seems to muddle the issues, based on some misguided idea that open source was a method for plucky independent developers to profit from the code paid by big corporations (in this case, Chromium) while being immune from their power. The whole premise that "capitalism hacked open-source" is itself ahistorical: if anything, open-source was a creation of capitalism, by people who disliked that Free Software had ethical implications, and wanted a term that would strip those and make it "corporation friendly". Does Google and other big corps profit off open source developers? No shit; that was the point.