WRT the article itself, I think the author fails to acknowledge one foundational asspect of free software: it's written by people/organizations who want to _use

WRT the article itself, I think the author fails to acknowledge one foundational asspect of free software: it's written by people/organizations who want to _use it_ not necessarily sell it. This is really the same question of: why are giant public school systems paying many millions of $ per year for algebra and chemistry textbooks? This is the modern workflow in which all high level tasks are really some form of going shopping. In terms of s/w, an example would be UCSD, which has one of the most prestigous CS programs in the US, and pays M$ to host their email? It may not be glamorous, but if it needs to be done, it needs to be done. Paying for a product, instead of creating it, because it's "boring" is not good financial strategy. Although it is widespread, almost ubiquitous.