The central conceit of the entire essay is that the goal of being an open source provider is to make something that everyone wants to use and in doing so are al

The central conceit of the entire essay is that the goal of being an open source provider is to make something that everyone wants to use and in doing so are allowed no choice in how the code is provided and licensed. That's all demonstrably false so the entire essay beyond that is a pointless thought exercise which appears to be becoming common with the rise of Internet intellectuals. Most code is not opened with that goal and everyone is free to share on whatever terms they like. Moreover the 'corporate pillaging' of open source is rarely if ever unrewarded; it often comes with sponsorship, senior positions with good pay or similar benefits.