> Open source has resulted in a world where you can’t make money just selling software, you have to lock people into ecosystems and services to monetize your wo

> Open source has resulted in a world where you can’t make money just selling software, you have to lock people into ecosystems and services to monetize your work. Microsoft made a lot of money selling Windows and their Office suite precisely by locking people into their ecosystem. You say you like markets, yet you don't like others offering goods at a lower price (free software), but you do like government-enforced monopolies on ideas (patents, and even copyright). If we're diving things into 'market' and 'not market', shouldn't you categorize them in the exact opposite way as you did? > Now, you get Android for “free” but only by turning your customers into the product. You also get linux for free, or you can pay for Windows and still be made into the product. The only way I can see someone arriving at your position is to selectively pay attention only to cases where free software with anti-consumer features crowded out straight-forward proprietary software, and ignore cases where free software turned out good (compilers, linux, firefox, text editors, libre office, lineageOS, VLC, etc. etc. etc.)