I see what you're saying, but then I also don't share the author's viewpoint. That may have a little to do with it. It is an interesting thought. What if you,

I see what you're saying, but then I also don't share the author's viewpoint. That may have a little to do with it. It is an interesting thought. What if you, as a company, create some open source that eliminates or genuinely competes with other companies? When a large company has the resources to foot the bill on some project, and just give it away as open source because it is not a core product, is that just as bad as any of the article cases? Some FB, Google, Amazon, MS et al. tool could be someone's entire business. Is it fair, open source or not, to release software for free, because you make money elsewhere such that you don't care about monetizing it? Is harming a competitors admissible if you literally never intend to directly profit off the endeavor? Imo, this line of thinking really challenges the point of the article, I don't know where you draw that line. I feel it would be interesting to evaluate a real example, though admittedly I can't think of one on the spot.